Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Tam Dalyell: What action her Department is taking to support British firms in bids for reconstruction projects in Iraq.

Patricia Hewitt: Through UK Trade and Investment, we provide a range of advice and support to British firms that are interested in helping with reconstruction work in Iraq. That advice takes full account of the security situation in Iraq and the terms of Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice.

Tam Dalyell: Realistically, as long as we are seen as an occupying army, and especially in light of those appalling pictures, which have had a dreadful effect in the Arab world, is there any possibility of proper reconstruction until the forces have been withdrawn and Iraq has a Government of its own?

Patricia Hewitt: I share the condemnation by my hon. Friend and many others of any abuse of prisoners that has taken place. Of course, the security situation is difficult, but the reality in Iraq is that its economy is growing and its water and sanitation services are significantly better than they were under Saddam Hussein. We have got thousands of schools and hospitals working, and we have got more Iraqis in jobs. I am proud of the fact that many British companies are bringing their expertise to help with that reconstruction.

Richard Ottaway: If I can take the opposite view to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), such is the state of Iraq's infrastructure that it can be remedied only by private investment. Private investors will invest only if the situation is militarily secure and remains so. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the armed forces will have to stay there for a considerable period while the infrastructure is repaired?

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we will continue to support the Iraqi people in moving towards self-government. The elections that will take place this weekend are another step in that direction and, of course, we will continue to support the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi Government. They will have to make the judgment about how long they want coalition forces to support them but, for the moment, we will continue to provide that support both directly and by training Iraq's own police and security forces.

Liz Blackman: TQ Education and Training Ltd in Long Eaton in my constituency has just been awarded a $10 million contract to provide training for the Ministry of Electricity in Iraq. It was extremely pleased with the support that UK Trade and Investment gave it by providing information on logistics and the trading environment and putting it in touch with the appropriate contacts in the Iraqi Government. Is that not an excellent example of the DTI supporting British firms so that they can play their part in much-needed reconstruction in Iraq?

Patricia Hewitt: Indeed it is. May I, through my hon. Friend, congratulate TQ Education and Training, which will be doing enormously important work with the Ministry of Electricity, just as other firms will help staff in the Ministry of Oil to gain the expertise that they need? That has been possible only because of the superb work of UK Trade and Investment and I am sure that she agrees that it would be disastrous if the Opposition had their way and effectively abolished it.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, while the Export Credits Guarantee Department has announced $100 million of additional short-term cover for Iraq contracts, £1 billion, with interest, of historic debts have had to be written off in Iraq and £3.1 billion of outstanding ECGD debts are deemed irrecoverable? Can she tell us how much British taxpayers may have to put at risk and, more particularly, will she undertake to report to the House the extent of any future write-offs? This is not a blank cheque for British companies, and it may not be secure because of the security situation.

Patricia Hewitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the Paris Club recently agreed to forgive 80 per cent. of Iraq's outstanding debts, as that is important in enabling reconstruction to take place. In the long term, with the enormous resources that Iraq has, there is no reason at all why it should not be able to repay debts. The ECGD, within a stringent risk and commercial framework, makes careful judgments on every country where it is asked to provide cover and, of course, on companies' individual applications.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend rightly acknowledged the contribution that British businesses make to construction and reconstruction in Iraq. PB Power in my constituency has received a grant from the Department, and the company is now using its considerable skills to create a national electricity generation and distribution system in Iraq to power hospitals, workplaces, homes and schools for the ordinary citizens of Iraq.

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate PB Power, which is doing immensely important work, along with many other companies. I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the British firms and British workers who are working alongside the Iraqi people and helping to rebuild that country in difficult and often dangerous circumstances.

News Industry Supply Chain

Angela Watkinson: What plans she has to reform the news industry supply chain.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In August last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry approved recommendations from the Office of Fair Trading to revise the newspaper wholesalers code of practice so as to remove current restrictions on retailers selling on newspaper titles to other retailers within the same wholesaler territory. We hope that removal of those restrictions will help promote the practice of selling on and give retailers increased choice and flexibility of supplier.

Angela Watkinson: Mr. Ashia, Mr. Patel and Mr. O'Connor, three independent newsagents in my constituency, have expressed concern about the wholesale monopoly that gives them no choice of supplier. They are backed up by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which says that publishers and wholesalers suggest
	"that thousands of small newsagents could be threatened, if current agreements are not given a Block Exemption from scrutiny under the Competition Act 1998"
	whereas, in reality,
	"this is no more than a ruse to allow publishers and wholesalers to maintain their stranglehold over the news industry."
	What would the Minister say to the three newsagents who contacted me?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Lady and other hon. Members have been approached by a large number of organisations including the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Newspaper Society and wholesalers. The issue is complicated but we want to preserve maximum choice for retailers, particularly local newsagents. In the repeal of vertical exclusions, we undertook to ask the Office of Fair Trading to discuss the matter with the various sectors involved and to report back to us. We are expecting that report in the very near future and we hope that it will address many of these issues.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that local newsagents are an important community service. They are increasingly squeezed by superstores selling newspapers and they are not getting a fair deal from the wholesalers. It is important that we get the report as soon as possible so that they get a fair deal, stay in business and continue to provide a local community service.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has championed that cause at Question Time and in debates in the House about the balance between wholesalers and small newsagents. It is important that small newsagents are protected, because of the service that they offer to our communities. We must wait for the OFT report, which I expect to be available soon because the extension of the repeal ends on 1 May. I acknowledge the point that is being made and hope that we will reach the right decisions quickly.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for what the Minister has said so far, but is he aware that, over the past decade, the combined effect of margin squeezes, spiralling carriage costs and poor wholesaler service has forced thousands of small newsagents into bankruptcy and closure? The result is that there are already 1,000 postcode sectors in the UK serving more than 4 million people that have no access to a newsagent. Does the Minister agree that, along with the closure of sub-post offices and small garages, that is bad news for the small firms sector and for communities, which is why it is so important that he acts?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will be aware of the process that we have to undertake under the competition regime. We also have to ensure maximum consumer choice, so that people can buy a paper or magazine from a local newsagent, supermarket, garage or wherever. I recognise the significant role that local newsagents play in our communities and their wider social role. I hope that the OFT recommendations will give us an opportunity to make sure that local newsagents are protected, but we must wait for the process to take its course.

David Taylor: May I declare an interest to the extent that generations of my family ran village post offices and newsagents? Does the Minister agree that it is important that the views of independent newsagents are not misrepresented? There appears to be a risk of that today. They have said that the solution to the supply and distribution problems faced by the industry will not be found by simply enacting a wide-ranging UK block exemption that prevents scrutiny of a market that is already highly concentrated and restricted, so they are in favour of reform of the kind that is anticipated. That is the case, is it not?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in newspapers. I enjoy our early morning Tea Room meetings reading them. He is right that, when the Secretary of State took the decision last year, 12 months were given before implementation to allow the industry an opportunity to come together and work out a good relationship. That is why the Office of Fair Trading was involved. I am aware that some people feel that the block exemption needs to be continued, but I know that the OFT is taking all these matters into consideration, and when it produces its report, we will make a judgment on it.

Business Support (Overseas Exhibitions)

Nigel Evans: What the total budget available to support businesses exhibiting overseas was in each year since 1997.

Patricia Hewitt: The total annual budget to support exhibitions and seminars abroad, including overseas missions, has been between £16 million and £21.6 million for each year since 1997. The budget for 2004–05 is £20 million.

Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to support British exporters and that overseas exhibitions are a tremendous showcase for them to display their goods and an opportunity for networking? If the budget is cut, it will disincentivise businesses in respect of exhibiting overseas. If we do not support our exporters, we can be certain that the Germans, French and Italians, and our other competitors around the world, will support their businesses. Can we have a fresh commitment from the Government that they will not slash that budget?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to maintain our support for British exporters and our support for inward investors alongside that. I invite him to cross the Floor and to join my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and to join me in opposing the disastrous plans of the Opposition virtually to abolish UK Trade and Investment, and with it, support for more than 30,000 British firms with their exports.

Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the improvement in the organisation and accountability of much of the outward trade mission organisation is welcome? Indeed, the back-up that it has received over recent years from embassy staff has been of the highest order. There is an anxiety, however, that the electoral irrelevance of the Opposition means that it is down to us to reassure people that we will continue to give them the backing and support that they currently enjoy, and that the worries of organisations such as regional development agencies and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry about a reduction in even a Labour Government's budget are unfounded. She should be able to reassure such organisations that the passport to export is going to be facilitated and supported as well as it has been in the recent past.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although we are certainly seeking to run this superb service even more efficiently in future than we have done in the past and to ensure that we get support for inward investors alongside exporters, I am happy to give him and our business customers that reassurance. Unlike the Opposition, we will not abolish passport to export, which is an enormous success, and unlike them, we will not abolish research and development grants or regional selective assistance. We will continue to support British firms and workers.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that we are committed to maintaining R and D budgets.
	When will the Secretary of State recognise that the best way to tackle the crisis in the balance of payments—it is a crisis because the deficit is very close to an all-time high—lies not with a string of different organisations having a finger in the pie, including all the regional development agencies throughout the country, UKTI and other bodies, but in having a single export promotion agency led by people with real experience from industry?

Patricia Hewitt: If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at his own James report, he would see that he and his party propose to sack 700 United Kingdom Trade and Investment staff and secondees—most of whom have private-sector experience—and put in 50 from the private sector. The business community has been the first to say that that simply would not work. In the James report, the Conservative party proposals for cutting £500 million—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Propaganda is for the manifesto, not the Floor of the House.

Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of exhibiting British business and showcasing British talents is to ensure that British products are in use in overseas markets? That being the case, will she join me in welcoming the negotiations on a possible joint venture between MG Rover Group and Shanghai Automotive? It offers the prospect not only of selling those products in Chinese markets, but of investment here in the United Kingdom. While recent press reports have been wide of the mark, will she assure the House that the Government are doing all that they can to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion?

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend knows, we are absolutely solid in our support for the UK motor manufacturing industry and for its increasingly successful exports. As he said, we certainly cannot believe everything that has been in the press recently on this subject. I take every opportunity to stress to Chinese Ministers and business colleagues in particular the enormous merits of the United Kingdom as a place for inward investment. I am doing everything possible within my power to help ensure that those negotiations on a joint venture are successfully concluded.

Cinema Industry

David Rendel: What plans she has to review fair trading regulations with respect to the cinema industry.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My Department has consulted publicly on recommendations from the chairman of the Office of Fair Trading that the Films (Exclusivity Agreements) Order 1989 made under the Fair Trading Act 1973 be revoked and the Secretary of State will take a decision on this order in the light of the chairman's advice due to be received shortly.

David Rendel: I am delighted to hear that, but I will press the Minister further. He will know that, by 2003, 71 per cent. of all cinemas were in multiplexes and that 75 per cent. of those were owned by just five companies, so choice has been dramatically restricted. Will he consider negotiating with his colleagues in other Departments on two measures that I suggested in my ten-minute Bill last year and that have now been supported by Time Out? The first is to change planning laws so that there will be a separate use class for cinemas and the second is to introduce the possibility of rate relief for small rural cinemas.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In a sense, as with my earlier answer, we have to wait for decisions to be taken before we move on to what recommendations to make in the light of those decisions. That is under the 1973 Act. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Enterprise Act 2002 took away powers from the Secretary of State and will give them to the Competition Commission. This is being looked at under the 1973 Act and the Secretary of State has to consult and consider the chairman's recommendations. When that has taken place, issues such as the changing nature of the industry will be considered. I am sure that decisions such as the one that the hon. Gentleman raised can be taken then, or certainly there can be consultation and discussion on those issues.

Chris Bryant: With the degree of vertical integration in the industry and with so many of the distributing companies and the people who own the cinemas themselves owned by the same people, unless we tackle the anti-competitive practices that may exist in the industry, is there not a real danger that independent producers who make small films will find it difficult to get those films into cinemas? Is it not also difficult for independent cinemas to get access to some of the big blockbuster movies that could make more money for them?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I recognise my hon. Friend's involvement in and commitment to making sure that creative industries, particularly the film industry, are successful. He will know that, since 1997, there have been tremendous tax advantages for small budget films of around £15 million. There has been a greater incentive to support the British film industry. It is difficult to make any comment at this stage until we have an OFT recommendation and the Secretary of State makes a decision.

Regulation

Jacqui Lait: How many regulations affecting business her Department introduced in the past year.

Nigel Griffiths: In 2004, 130 regulations were passed under seven items of primary legislation, as compared with 1994, when the previous Administration passed 148 regulations. The hon. Lady will join me in welcoming that reduction.

Jacqui Lait: It is no cause for congratulation that industry is increasingly regulated, which is why it believes that the Government do not care for industry. In the light of the cost to British industry of increased regulation and the findings of the British Chambers of Commerce that the Government did not use sunset clauses in 2002–03, will the Minister heed the Cabinet Office, which has urged the use of sunset clauses, or does he still believe that sunset clauses are a quack cure?

Nigel Griffiths: I believe that we must bear down on regulations, some of the worst of which have been effectively tackled by our unit. It is important to examine all the options, but if the hon. Member and her party believe that sunset clauses are the universal solution to the problem, why did they not introduce them during their 18 years in government?

Liam Byrne: This month, Barclays bank has published new data showing that the business start-up rate in Birmingham is set to rise by 17 per cent. Regulations aside, does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time to start a business in this country?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. That point was reinforced last week by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, which said that this country is more entrepreneurial than all our major European competitors and Japan, too. The Barclays survey shows that more companies started up last year than at any time since the survey began in 1988. More people are in work than at any time in our history and economic growth has occurred for 50 consecutive quarters. My hon. Friend's constituents are working hard and growing their businesses and their experience is reflected up and down the country.

Andrew Hunter: Many people in industry believe that the Government are oblivious to the damaging downward spiral of excessive regulation and increasing non-wage costs, which undermine competitiveness. Are the Government aware that the two factors are combining to make the UK a less attractive place to do business?

Nigel Griffiths: The representations that I have received as Minister for Small Business and Enterprise include a big thank you for abolishing automatic fines on VAT, which hit 200,000 businesses and cost them £99 million in fines in the final year of the last Conservative Administration. Businesses have thanked me for raising the audit threshold to help almost 300,000 companies avoid bureaucracy and for abolishing corporation tax for 150,000 small businesses. We have done a lot to ensure that businesses do not face bureaucracy and tax, but I am first to admit that more remains to be done, and we will do more in another term.

Jim Sheridan: Will my hon. Friend examine the regulations surrounding employment agencies? He may be aware of the recent investigation by the BBC Radio 4 "PM" programme into the exploitation of migrant workers by bogus employment agencies, which take money from migrant workers to provide jobs that do not exist. Will he examine the current regulations and, if necessary, block any loopholes to stop bogus employment agencies exploiting poor, vulnerable migrant workers?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. I know that the House and the country will thank him for his Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which is designed to crack down on this. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations is determined to reinforce those efforts and to bear down on such disgraceful practices.

Stephen O'Brien: For British business to reverse its declining competitiveness under this Government, it needs Government to get out of its way. Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrated that a Labour Government would have to raise taxes by £11 billion were they to stay in office. Labour offer no hope for business, in contrast to the Conservatives, who will reduce taxes.
	The other crushing Labour tax on business by another name is the burden of over-regulation. Precisely by how much will compliance costs to business rise if, preserve us, Labour cling on to office for a third term?

Nigel Griffiths: Many measures are being taken to reduce compliance costs to business, so the hon. Member has clearly got the wrong end of the stick. Having read his report complaining about thousands of regulations being passed last year, I would be interested to know why the Conservatives prayed against only eight of them.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has failed to answer the question because he has absolutely no idea, and does not care, about how much compliance with regulations is costing British business and British competitiveness. Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said that the problem with regulation is cultural, which is the case not least in his Department? The Minister and his Secretary of State are all talk. Will he tell the House how he intends to reverse the flow of regulations spewing out of his Department? What career incentives have he and the Secretary of State put in place for DTI civil servants to suggest specific repeals of regulations, as we have done, and not to propose yet more burdens on business?

Nigel Griffiths: It is wax out of the ears time. The hon. Member will have heard me say that 137 regulations were passed last year compared with 148 in the same period 10 years ago. We will take no lessons about that from him. We are the envy of the advanced industrial world in terms of the expansion of our economy as against the other G7 economies. He makes gibes against our Department, which he would abolish—a scheme that commands almost no support—but he should know that we are highly rated on our regulatory impact assessments and our regulatory reform orders. He should read the Whitehall memos with more care.

Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend find out whether there is anything that he can do by regulation to increase the number of women entrepreneurs in the UK? When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions visited my constituency last week, she revealed that 101,000 women are running their own businesses in the east of England. That represents 27 per cent. of all self-employed people. Women in the east of England are clearly doing excellently in helping to promote business and prosperity in the region, but there is still a long way to go.

Nigel Griffiths: I agree. That is a key component of the Small Business Service and the whole thrust of the DTI. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry and the Regions take that seriously. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report that was published last week said that 177,000 women set up a business in Britain last year—a record number. She will know that if as many women as men had done so, we would have another 100,000 potentially thriving businesses. That is the task that my colleagues and I have set ourselves, and, if I may say so, my right hon. Friends have set about it with relish.

Nuclear Power

Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the future of the UK nuclear power industry.

Mike O'Brien: Existing nuclear power stations are expected to continue in operation for some years, with Sizewell operating up to the 2030s. Our policy on possible new nuclear power stations was set out in the 2003 energy White Paper. There are no current plans for new build, but we do not rule out that option in the future.

Michael Jack: Today, I had the pleasure of receiving a delegation from the Chinese environmental protection committee. Its members told me that China is about to double its commitment to nuclear power. A recent MORI poll confirms that the public now favour the generation of more nuclear power because they recognise its contribution to reducing CO 2 emissions. Given that the Minister confirms that the option will be kept open, will he ask the nuclear installations inspectorate to commence a design review of candidate designs to cut down the lead time if the industry can provide funding and investment to build a new generation to replace power stations that are being taken out of use?

Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in those issues, given that Springfield is in his constituency. It does a good job and has an excellent safety record. However, the time scales for developing a nuclear power station are long. We are currently keeping open the options for possible nuclear development at some time in the future if the position changes, but it is currently economically unattractive. No private sector business organisations are making such propositions. We continue to watch the operation of the market but I repeat that the proposition is economically unattractive.

Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend please visit Culham and look at the next generation of nuclear energy producers? Will he acknowledge that, to have an option, we must have the ability to produce nuclear energy? Some in the industry fear that, unless we stop the slide, the critical mass in the British nuclear sector will be unable to develop, design or build any future generation of nuclear power stations.

Mike O'Brien: We are making efforts to ensure that we keep the skills that are needed if we decide to build in future. It is currently economically unattractive to do that: nobody is presenting propositions for building a nuclear power station. The decision does not need to be made immediately. If we reconsidered the matter, we would want to produce a White Paper and hold a broad-based consultation and discussion before making a decision. It is not a foregone conclusion that new build is necessary. Progress is being made on gas and renewables and energy efficiency, which are currently our priorities.

Michael Weir: The Minister said that new nuclear power stations were currently uneconomic. Is he aware of the huge concern in Scotland that the crazy transmission price regime that the zealots of Ofgem pursue will undermine the economics of new renewable build in northern Scotland? Does the Government's support for that regime imply that they intend to support new nuclear power stations in future?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman stretches the question to try to include matters that are important in Scotland—matters that we are considering with a great deal of care. Ofgem is examining how connections between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are developing. We believe that, in future, whatever the regime, Scotland will produce an enormous amount of energy for the whole UK. The link between Scotland and the rest of the UK is the key to Scotland's future prosperity.

Bill Tynan: Keeping the nuclear option open is welcome but there is a problem with retaining skills and attracting graduates to the nuclear industry. That is worrying. Nuclear waste is also a major issue. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment today that, if the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—seeks an extension of report-back time on the solutions for nuclear waste, he will resist it?

Mike O'Brien: We set up CoRWM and are awaiting its report. We want to ensure that the report deals effectively with the issues that it is considering, and it is important to respond to any requests with the due consideration that it deserves. CoRWM has a complex and difficult task to undertake and we want it to be done fully and properly.

Peter Atkinson: With respect to the Minister, his view that the Government are maintaining skills in nuclear engineering is not shared by engineering departments at universities, where they are running things down continually. There is no doubt in my mind or that of many others that we will need nuclear power stations one day and the skill to build them will not exist. We cannot continue to rely on wind power or our indigenous resources. For example, we cannot rely on coal—the last coal mine in Northumberland is going to be closed down.

Mike O'Brien: We are making efforts to improve the skills base in the nuclear industry. We are working with the private sector as well as engaging with the trade unions to ensure that we preserve the skills that would be essential if we were to take the option of nuclear new build in the future. We will preserve those skills to ensure that the industry—which has quite a long life ahead of it, with Sizewell lasting until 2030—will be able to provide part of our diverse energy supplies. We are looking at the future, keeping the options open and trying to ensure that those skills will be there, should we need them.

Trade Balance

Teddy Taylor: What estimate she has made of the balance of trade in the current financial year; and what estimate she has made of the balance of trade with the EU in the current financial year.

Douglas Alexander: The Government do not produce forecasts on a geographical basis. However, figures published by the Treasury in the December 2004 pre-Budget report forecast a trade deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product of 3.7 per cent. in 2004, falling to 3.5 per cent. in 2007.

Teddy Taylor: Does it not genuinely worry the Government that, whereas in 1970 we had a positive balance of trade in goods with the 15 members of the EU before we joined that organisation—allegedly to improve our trade—in the past 25 years we have seen horrendous and worsening deficits in our trade with Europe, culminating in a figure of £24 billion last year? Why has our trade with Europe gone so horribly wrong, and what can be done about it?

Douglas Alexander: That is an intriguing point for the hon. Gentleman to make, given his long-held views on this matter, not least because one of the contributory factors has been the outstandingly long and successful growth in the British economy over recent years. However, that should not mask the more general point that more than half our trade is with the European Union. Nearly 60 per cent. of our exports of goods are sent to European Union markets, accounting for 3 million jobs in what is still an extraordinarily strong British economy.

John Battle: Are not the Government's efforts to promote a better balance of trade, not only with the EU but internationally, greatly helped by British Trade International, a Government body that fuses the assistance of both the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry? When that body was set up, I seem to recall the Conservatives praising our efforts and welcoming the initiative as a positive step forward. What effect would the proposal in the James review to abort it have on our future balance of trade?

Douglas Alexander: I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's expertise in this area and of his immense contribution to the establishment of British Trade International and its successor body, UK Trade and Investment. His expertise is evident from his question, and it explains his incredulity that, when BTI is doing such outstanding work for British exporters and in bringing inward investment into the United Kingdom, the Conservatives should choose this time to suggest that it should be abolished.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that one issue affecting our balance of trade with Europe in relation to large manufacturers and energy users is the fact that energy prices in Europe are established by a different mechanism from that used in our liberalised market here? What action are the Government taking to ensure that the EU delivers a fully liberalised energy market on the mainland of Europe, and when does the Minister expect that to be achieved?

Douglas Alexander: I appreciate that this is an important issue. Tomorrow I am meeting in my constituency representatives of Ciba Speciality Chemicals, one of our main manufacturers, which has concerns about the operation of the energy market in Europe. I am working closely on this matter with my colleague, the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take it very seriously.

Miners' Compensation

Adam Price: If she will make a statement on progress in determining the position of former surface workers in relation to the miners' compensation scheme.

Nigel Griffiths: A total of 396,000 compensation payments have been made to sick miners, or their widows or relatives, for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger, totalling £2.3 billion. I outlined the latest position on surface workers in my letter of 13 January to the hon. Gentleman and others. Following a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, I have given an undertaking to re-examine the position.

Adam Price: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware of the enormous distress that this issue is causing to former surface workers. Will he tell us whether the Government are insisting on costs being awarded against litigants if they are unsuccessful in any test case? I understand that solicitors acting for the miners have offered to undertake this work at no cost. Could not Government counsel make a similar undertaking?

Nigel Griffiths: Solicitors acting for the miners have had £450 million in public money, so they are not short of such funds. Clearly, with legal aid and other avenues open to miners, those who suffer from disease and who are on low incomes or low pensions can have their legal costs covered through apportionment of costs, as the hon. Member will know. I hope that he will urge solicitors approaching him and his constituents to follow that route.

Michael Clapham: I pay tribute to the Government for what they have done with regard to the scheme for underground workers, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a question regarding surface workers. There were areas on the colliery surface that were extremely dusty, such as the coal prep plant, the screens and the coke batteries. Will he consider introducing a separate scheme from the current one, which need not involve solicitors and could be drawn up in a similar way to the pneumoconiosis scheme, which, by the way, covered surface workers?

Nigel Griffiths: I have been advised of the medical evidence in relation to surface-only workers. Unfortunately, the levels of respiratory disease and dust in their lungs do not appear to make them eligible, and would not appear to do so under the other scheme. I opened up our records to miners' solicitors, so that test cases could be brought forward. Towards the end of last year, 15 cases were identified, and I hope that solicitors can find a way of pursuing those cases, so that we can get to the facts. The medical evidence so far is that dust damage done to lungs on the surface is not comparable to that done to deep-mine workers in dusty pits. We are trying to explore that evidence with miners' representatives.

Jeff Ennis: Will the Minister also accept my congratulations on the fact that underground workers in my constituency have received almost £79 million from the compensation scheme? Having said that, I am pleased that the Minister has announced that he is reviewing the Government's stance. Will he explain to me and my constituents who suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, who worked for many years in the washeries and the screens on the surface, where they contracted their CBE if not at work?

Nigel Griffiths: There is nothing to stop a miner taking a civil case. Indeed, the whole scheme arose from a civil case about that. The medical evidence so far has not in any way been conclusive as to whether they have suffered because of other factors. The medical evidence has been presented, and we have worked with miners' representatives to ensure that they have the most open access and the best possible help in bringing a test case. As I have said, 15 miners have been identified, and I hope that one or more of those cases can be taken forward.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on the work of the national contact point in respect of allegations made by the UN panel of experts with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Douglas Alexander: The national contact point works to raise   awareness of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises and to promote their use by companies in developing their own codes of conduct. When specific instances regarding their implementation are raised, such as by the UN expert panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the national contact point contributes to the resolution of issues raised, for example, by offering a forum for discussion between interested parties.

Norman Lamb: The Minister will be aware that the UN panel concluded that the conflict in the Congo, which claimed the lives of up to 5 million people, was sustained as a result of what it described as the multi-billion dollar theft of the country's mineral assets by companies and other Governments, and yet the NCP process seems deeply flawed in investigating and considering those concerns. Avient Ltd has recently admitted to supplying services to the Zimbabwe defence force in the Congo, yet it seems to have had the mildest of tickings-off. Is he prepared to consider meeting me, other Members and non-governmental organisations to examine those grave concerns?

Douglas Alexander: It is worth reminding the House that the UN expert panel was originally established to consider allegations of sanctions busting involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but found them to be unsubstantiated. However, a number of lines continue to be investigated, and I would of course be willing to meet Members to discuss the matter.

China (Cashmere Imports)

Archy Kirkwood: What steps she plans to take to increase the level of monitoring of the importation of cashmere knitted garments from China.

Douglas Alexander: Surveillance licensing of EU imports from China on a range of textiles and clothing products, including cashmere knitted garments, was introduced by the EU and implemented by the UK on 1 January 2005.

Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of cashmere knitting to south-east Scotland, an area that he knows well? Does he also acknowledge that cashmere garments are unique in that the raw material is, by definition, sourced exclusively in China? China's admission to the World Trade Organisation rules makes it important for dumping regulations to be monitored carefully. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, during the EU presidency later this year, he will make it his task to assure the local industry in both the borders and the rest of the United Kingdom that that monitoring will be carried out diligently?

Douglas Alexander: Of course I am aware of the significance of the cashmere industry to the borders region of Scotland, and of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in that industry. There are real opportunities for the industry, given the potential for exports to the expanding Chinese market with China's accession to the WTO. Specific steps have been taken—not just the surveillance licensing that I mentioned, but the continuation of the EU dumping regulations that he mentioned. I am sure that, not least on the basis of his interest in the matter, we will continue to give it consideration.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Social Care (Pay Rates)

Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on pay rates for women employed in social care.

Jacqui Smith: The median female wage for health and social work is £8.72 per hour, which is above the £7.95 hourly wage for all women in employment. Registration of social care workers is being led by the Department of Health and it is hoped that that will help to raise the status of this important sector of the work force.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister will know that local social services departments have great difficulty in meeting the demand for social care workers, especially when a 24-hour care package can require six or more   people to care for one client. The employees are almost exclusively women with complex domestic commitments, so the jobs involve flexible hours and are often local. The women are tied into the jobs and have no pay bargaining power because they are locked into the terms and conditions that go with the jobs. How can we raise the status of those women and set them on a career path, so that when their children are older they can move to other jobs where their skills are transferable?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady is right about the vital contribution made by care workers in many communities throughout the country. She asks what we can do. First, we need to improve the training of those in social care. Secondly, we need to ensure that local authorities have the resources both to recruit and retain the workers on the pay that they deserve for their efforts. That is why the £150 million grant that authorities will receive in 2005–06 for recruitment, retention and training is so crucial, and that is why I am sure the hon. Lady will share my disappointment that it will presumably be subject to one of the cuts proposed by her party's Front Benchers.

Sandra Gidley: I am worried by the Minister's figures. She said that the median female hourly wage was £8.72, but earlier this year the Equal Opportunities Commission said that 5 per cent. of the social care work force earned around £5 an hour. Home owners say that they cannot afford to pay more on the rates provided by social services departments. What does the Minister think the minimum wage for the job should be, and what action are the Government taking to ensure that social services pay enough for that minimum to be paid to these hard-working and much-needed employees?

Jacqui Smith: As I said in my earlier answer, if we are to ensure that the people carrying out this vital work can be paid a decent rate, we must make certain that our social services departments are funded properly. In particular, we need to make certain that the resources are directed towards recruitment, retention and training. The £150 million grant—the level of grant has increased in the past few years—is crucial in that regard, but so is training itself and the status of these workers. In both those areas, the Department of Health has taken important action and the ongoing registration of social care workers will ensure that their status and pay reflect the contribution that they make to our communities.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has touched on the critical issue: the resources allocated to local government to enable it to pay for social care workers. I am frequently approached by representatives of residential care homes and nursing homes in my constituency, who say that they cannot find sufficient women to do the job because our area, fortunately, is economically vibrant and well-off and the demand for labour is tremendous. Will the Government not take account of this issue in allocating resources to local authorities and thereby enable them to provide the extra pay needed to employ these care workers, who play an essential role in looking after the many vulnerable people in our society?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Of course it is crucial that we allocate to local authorities the resources necessary not only to train and recruit these workers, who are doing such an important job, but to retain them on decent rates of pay. Members are right to say that the majority of such workers are women, but it should be part of our task to attract more men into this sector, to increase the total number of workers available. Yes, we do need to ensure that local authorities have more resources and, through the training and recruitment grant, we are ensuring that they will get an extra £150 million next year. I am sorry to return to an earlier point, but if the Conservatives' sums are to add up, that grant must form part of their proposed cuts—should they ever get into power.

Equal Pay

David Taylor: What recent assessment she has made of the rates of pay for men and women doing the same job.

Patricia Hewitt: Although the gender pay gap is at an all-time low, at 14.4 per cent. it is still too high. That is why we promoted equal pay reviews, which have now been completed by all 88 Government Departments and agencies, and strengthened the law in this area.

David Taylor: It is as astonishing as it is unacceptable that, despite the growing number of women workers—indeed, they now outnumber men in half the local authority areas in Britain—they and we tolerate female rates of pay that are up to 25 per cent. lower than male ones. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the legal and moral question, such inequality is now having an adverse economic impact? Women having less money to spend is unnecessarily restricting development of the service sector, as we see in many parts of the United Kingdom.

Patricia Hewitt: Like my hon. Friend, I have always argued that unequal pay is both unfair to the individuals affected and damaging to business, employers and the economy. Local councils, like other public sector bodies, are absolutely committed to equal pay and I am glad to say that, in most cases, they have reviewed their pay structures to rectify the historical wrong that has been done to millions of women.

Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the Opposition entirely agree with everything that she has just said, and that equal pay for men and women is an extremely important principle that we defend? However, principles are no good unless they can be enforced. Will she consider the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposal to make enforcement of equal pay rates easier, while not putting unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses?

Patricia Hewitt: We are of course looking carefully at the EOC's proposal. Indeed, we established the Women and Work Commission, which is chaired by Baroness Prosser, to examine the action that needs to be taken to deal with the fundamental causes of the gender pay gap. We have already strengthened the law in this area and are creating specialist equal pay tribunals. We will, of course, continue to look at proposals for further action, while recognising that we must balance the demands that we make on business with the proper standards that we set to protect individuals. I welcome the hon. Lady's commitment to that principle.

Women and Work Commission

Mohammad Sarwar: What steps are being taken to encourage submission of evidence and views to the Women and Work Commission.

Jacqui Smith: The Women and Work Commission's call for evidence was published in English and Welsh on the women and equality unit's website in November, with responses requested by 11 February 2005. It has been publicised to over 600 organisations across the UK. Fair Play Scotland has appointed a worker to co-ordinate Scottish views.

Mohammad Sarwar: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the progress being made in Glasgow, where more women are going back to work after having children, and advancing their careers in business and local government?

Jacqui Smith: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the jobs for the women and work commissioners will be to visit places like Glasgow to talk to women and their employers about what has helped women to make choices about combining work and care, and to make sure that women in work get the fair deal that they deserve.

Tim Loughton: Oxfam has estimated that there are more than 1 million home workers in the UK. Of that total, 90 per cent. are women, 50 per cent. of whom come from ethnic minorities. Home workers' average pay is reported to be as low as £2.53 an hour. Two years ago, the Government consulted on home workers' employment status, and promised to publish a report in January this year. Where is it?

Jacqui Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position of homeworkers, and I shall write to him about the progress of the report to which he referred.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 31 January—Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 1 February—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 2 February—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2005–06, followed by motions on the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2005–06 and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003–04: Amending Report 2005.
	Thursday 3 February—Remaining stages of the Child Benefit Bill.
	Friday 4 February—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 7 February—Remaining stages of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.
	Tuesday 8 February—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 9 February—Second Reading of the European Union Bill.
	Thursday 10 February—Remaining stages of the Identity Cards Bill.
	Friday 11 February—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for February will be:
	Thursday 3 February— A debate on rehabilitation and healthier workplaces.
	Thursday 10 February—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on obesity.
	Thursday 24 February—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on migration and development.
	The House will also wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, we will rise for the half-term week on Thursday 10 February and return on Monday 21 February.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House join me in remembering the suffering of the victims of the holocaust on holocaust memorial day, 60 years after the first camp was liberated, and will he pay tribute to the survivors and their families? The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are, of course, attending today's remembrance service in Westminster Hall.
	Following the publication of the European Union Bill, and the announcement of a Bill to impose house arrest on terrorists, will the leader of the House give us the full timetable for those Bills? Is it his intention that they will be debated on the Floor of the House?
	The lottery distributor the Big Lottery Fund has closed funding after 31 May, because it is awaiting the National Lottery Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we can expect to debate it?
	The Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill seems to have become stalled in the other place, with the Government having postponed Second Reading twice now. Is there a problem, or can we expect to debate the Bill here soon, as thousands of prison and probation officers are waiting to know what will happen to their jobs?
	May we have an urgent statement about programming of legislation, in the light of what has happened in the Committee considering the Identity Cards Bill? There has been no debate on five of its most important clauses because of the draconian guillotine, and half the Bill remains undiscussed despite an extra hour's consideration today. Only one sitting remains.
	The Leader of the House will know that the Treasury Committee has said that two months' notice of the date of the Budget should be given. If he will not give us the date, can he at least explain why not? If we cannot have the date, may we at least have an urgent debate on the Committee's report, published today, and on the green budget from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the highly regarded independent think-tank, which confirmed the existence of an £11million black hole in the Chancellor's sums and also confirms the practicality of Conservative plans to cut taxes. We all remember that the Chancellor's first act in his first Budget after the previous election was to raise taxes by hiking national insurance. Is it not the case that he would have to raise taxes by £11 billion if Labour scraped back into government? Can we not debate in Government time the stark choice for Britain—more taxes under Labour or tax cuts under the Conservatives?

Peter Hain: I will deal with that nonsense in due course. First, I join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging—as I know the whole House will wish to do—the importance of holocaust day. The message must be, "Never, ever again." I also hope that we will all work together to confront neo-Nazi forces still in British politics. We did that with the National Front, including through the campaigns of the Anti-Nazi League some years ago, and we must do the same with the British National party today. I also wish to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing the use of Westminster Hall for the special ceremony, attended by Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to commemorate holocaust day.
	Discussions will be held through the usual channels on the European Union Bill, and we will table a programme motion in due course. However, it has been the case in the past that EU treaty amendment Bills were heard on the Floor of the House, and I see no reason to change that.
	I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the National Lottery Bill will come to the House, nor can I give him information at this stage on the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill. However, his allegation about that Bill is wrong.
	On the Identity Cards Bill, the truth is that the issues have been debated for many years. The draft Bill was subject to detailed scrutiny before being introduced—

Patrick Cormack: No, it was not.

Peter Hain: Yes, it was. It was subject to detailed scrutiny and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took that into account in drawing up the Bill that was eventually introduced. It is very interesting to note that an unusual amount of filibustering took place in Committee on this Bill. I do not know whether that was deliberate, to allow questions such as the hon. Gentleman has just put claiming that the Bill had insufficient time: I merely note what happened. The time that we have provided for the Identity Cards Bill is fully adequate for its remaining stages and we do not intend to make any changes.
	I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman a date for the Budget and I do not think that he seriously expects me to do so. He mentioned a black hole, but the real black hole is in Tory finances. They propose £35 billion-worth of cuts, which is inconceivable and completely unrealistic, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear. They also propose £4 billion in tax cuts, but nobody—except Conservative Front Benchers—believes that they could have tax cuts, massive savings and cuts in spending on that scale. They simply could not do everything at the same time.
	It is very interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition's own policy document on taxes says that the options discussed in that paper represent a menu from which a Conservative Government may draw when formulating their Budgets. It goes on to say that the presence of a particular option in that paper or in its successors in the consultation series does not constitute any guarantee or promise that the particular option in question will form part of any Conservative Budget. So, we cannot even believe the £4 billion tax cuts that they say they will introduce. The contrast is between a Labour Government, who have introduced economic stability of a kind that we have not known for generations—high employment, low mortgage rates, low interest rates, low inflation and economic growth year by year—and the mess and the black hole created by the last Conservative economic plan.

Ronnie Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in south-east Northumberland we have had a black Wednesday, with the announcement that 500 jobs at a pharmaceutical factory are to go, and of course the loss of Ellington colliery, with 300-odd jobs—nearly 900 jobs altogether. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate, not on the narrow subject of south-east Northumberland but on the north-east as a whole, so that at least the Members for that region could point out the disadvantages that they are getting from the Government?

Peter Hain: I know that, especially to my hon. Friend, the issue of collieries such as Ellington is very important, and I share and identify with him on that matter, representing as I do a similar constituency, where coal mining is an indelible part of its tradition—indeed, in its case, its present. Obviously we are very sad about the closure of Ellington colliery and we will fight to preserve all jobs wherever and whenever we can. However, a balance needs to be struck. The difference between the situation now and under the Conservatives, when mines and pits were closed by the hundred, is that then there was nowhere else for the miners to go. There were no alternative jobs. When my hon. Friend says that he and his constituency have been let down by this Government, the truth is that, as I believe he is on the record as saying, unemployment has been cut massively in his constituency. There are job prospects in the region because the north-east is doing better than it has done for generations. We must recognise that there will be a process of switch in jobs and a process of churning, but at least we are going to work with those involved to find them new job opportunities.

Paul Tyler: May the Liberal Democrats entirely endorse what the Leader of the House has just said about holocaust memorial day? I am sure that colleagues in all parts of the House will do so.
	I am sure we all hope that the elections in Iraq this weekend will produce the maximum turnout and suffer the minimum disruption from terrorists. When will the Prime Minister be in a position to make a statement on the outcome of those elections, and the implications for the presence of British forces in Iraq? In particular, when will there be a timetable for the reduction in those forces and their replacement by troops from Iraq or from other Islamic countries, as the security situation permits? This morning, No. 10 Downing street has indicated that that prospect is under review. When can we be given a firm exit strategy, and does the Leader of the House accept that the mere presence of British and American troops in Iraq may feed that insurgency and disruption?
	On the European Union Bill, the Leader of the House was very coy last week when I asked him about the timetable. Bearing in mind the timetable not only in this House but in the other place, can he now give us a firm indication of whether he intends and hopes that Royal Assent will be achieved before the end of April?
	Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Home Secretary will be prepared to give us a statement on the important issue of deaths caused by police drivers? The Leader of the House may have seen an important analysis in the Daily Express today, which reveals that 55 crashes a day take place involving police vehicles, leading to 30 deaths every year. I have raised this subject on numerous occasions, not least because, as the Leader of the House may recall, I was a member of a police authority for many years. Successive Home Secretaries have said that the situation is improving, but it is clearly deteriorating; may we have a statement?

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about holocaust day, which reflect a common position throughout the House. I will bear in mind what he said about Iraq. Sunday will be a historic day for Iraq, and the extent of Iraqi participation in the election is enormous, with 8,000 candidates, 150,000 officials and thousands of polling stations. Whatever we felt about the war—I respect the different view that he took about military action—our common objective is for democracy to triumph over terrorism, bloodshed and attempts to bomb Iraq back into Islamic fundamentalism and tyranny of Saddam Hussein's kind. That must be the choice, so we all want the elections to succeed.
	The hon. Gentleman asks when British forces might withdraw and mentions the exit strategy. I understand those points, but our motto is, "We're not quitters". We will not turn our back on the Iraqi people or the Iraqi Interim Government. We will ensure that we finish the job and support the transition of Iraq from tyranny into democracy because that is the clear strategy on which we have embarked. Of course we will want to withdraw British forces as soon as possible, but we will not do that except at the request of the Iraqi Government. If they want us to go, we will of course go, but meanwhile we are stabilising and reinforcing their security forces and providing those forces with the opportunity to take over.
	I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with a timetable for the European Union Bill at this stage. However, it might depend on Opposition co-operation. If the Conservatives, especially, want the Bill to go through quickly, they can provide us with a ready-made plan through the usual channels. It might, however, suit them for it not to go through quickly, so it is their choice.
	We fully accept the seriousness of the issue of deaths on the road caused by police drivers. The Association of Chief Police Officers is well aware of the criticisms that have been levelled. It launched new guidance last year and there is considerable investment in driver training in the police service. Management controls are constantly reviewed to ensure that robust risk assessments are in place and that the maintenance of safety is the priority at all times. However, there is no question but that the numbers are too high.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two thirds of a massive problem in my constituency has been cracked; first, by the provision of £104 million by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to clear up Avenue cokeworks, and secondly with £4 million from the Department of Trade and Industry to clear the neighbouring Grassmoor lagoons? However, the third aspect of the problem is the health of the workers at the Avenue site and that of the surrounding community. Responses about the situation from the Department of Health have not been helpful. May we have a statement from a Health Minister to show that the Department is on to the issue and taking up information from the other two Departments about the serious contamination that occurred on the sites?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the whole House will support me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been an assiduous and effective parliamentarian during his time here, and wishing him all the best for his future retirement.

Harry Barnes: It could be another year yet.

Peter Hain: I did say future retirement—this year or next year. The investment in my hon. Friend's constituency is enormous.

Harry Barnes: Tremendous.

Peter Hain: It is tremendous investment, as my hon. Friend says, and I pay tribute to him for campaigning tirelessly for it. If I may say so, the investment is typical of the Labour Government, who invest in local communities, unlike the situation under our predecessors when we experienced savage cuts. The health of the workers concerned is uppermost in our minds and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to be vigilant on the matter.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary, after he has had a chance to investigate the matter, on the information contained in early-day motion 591, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell)?
	  [That this House notes with great concern the recent admission, following the discovery of documents in the Lithuanian Special Archive, that both the country's Foreign Minister, Antanas Valionis, and, even more importantly, the Director-General of the State Security Department, Arvydas Pocius, were Reserve Officers in the Soviet KGB; deplores the dismissal of the Director of the Lithuanian Special Archive; believes that there are implications for the security of NATO, notwithstanding the welcome improvement in relations between Russia and the West; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement about these disturbing revelations.]
	The early-day motion relates to the recent admissions that not only the Foreign Minister of Lithuania, which is now a NATO country, but the head of Lithuania's principal intelligence service were reserve officers in the Soviet KGB. It also notes the worrying fact that it appears that the head of documentation archive in which the information was discovered has been sacked. This is a very disturbing matter. We are remembering the Nazi holocaust today, but there was a Soviet holocaust as well. In addition, there are implications for NATO security. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House conveyed to the Foreign Secretary the need to look into this serious matter.

Peter Hain: I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's request to the Foreign Secretary, because he is right about the seriousness of the matter. I understand that there is particular sensitivity in the international Jewish community about the implications of the discovery and that the Lithuanian Parliament has established a commission to investigate allegations of links between senior public figures of the KGB. It held its first meeting yesterday and I cannot prejudge its findings.
	I am absolutely bowled over that the hon. Gentleman did not ask about the diary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I can only assume that he is giving my right hon. Friend the day off because it is his birthday.

Tom Clarke: In view of the ongoing human rights abuses, death and destruction in Darfur, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can consider, for example, the remarkable revelations in The Independent yesterday, the excellent job that the Department for International Development is trying to do despite the obstruction, and, perhaps above all, the Government's view of the role of the United Nations Security Council in a humanitarian crisis made all the worse by the fact that it is man-made and continuing?

Peter Hain: I completely agree that the crisis is a stain on Africa. Everybody, including leaders throughout the continent of Africa, is working with us to try to solve it. My right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to press the matter further at DFID questions next week. I acknowledge the way in which he has continually brought it to the attention of the House.

George Young: May we have an early debate on the Government's proposals for the House of Lords? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, at the Labour party conference, the Lord Chancellor said:
	"We need between now and the preparation of our manifesto to identify a solution which makes for a representative chamber, and then commit ourselves to it, in the manifesto."?
	Did the Leader of the House read The Daily Telegraph on Monday, which reports that when asked whether there would be proposals ready for the manifesto, the Leader of the House of Lords said no? May we have a debate, so that we can find out precisely what is going on?

Peter Hain: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read the interview that I gave to the New Statesman today. I thought that he was going to quote me—it would have added a bit of spice to his question. We are committed to reform of the House of Lords. The issue now is not only its composition and reaching a consensus on it, but the powers of the second Chamber—how to stop it vetoing House of Commons-initiated legislation and make it perform its proper function, which is scrutinising, revising and improving House of Commons-initiated legislation. That is where the debate lies and we intend to make progress on it.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Has my right hon. Friend had time to glance at The Guardian this morning? If he has, he has seen a story headed "Manchester may face congestion charging". Will he confirm that at Transport questions on 21 December, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), the Secretary of State for Transport stated categorically that, in its pursuit of light rail and an integrated transport system, Greater Manchester would not be forced to have a congestion charge?

Peter Hain: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that there would be no draconian pressure put on Manchester to introducing congestion charging. The matter is one for Manchester, in discussion with the Government, to decide. Progress on the tram system is a parallel, but entirely separate, matter.

Peter Viggers: May we have an early debate on Government industrial policy, perhaps linked with the subject of the integrity of Government? I think that they should be linked because, earlier this month, I received information from a reliable source that tens of millions of pounds were to be given to Swan Hunter shipyard, but in response to questions I put to the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Trade and Industry, the MOD replied:
	"The Ministry of Defence does not provide financial support to the defence industry
	and the DTI replied that it
	"has awarded just one grant of £1.2 million in September 2000". —[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 381W, 148W.]
	Yet in today's newspaper, I read that an agreement was reached on 10 December that the MOD would give £84 million to Swan Hunter. If the Government are giving a pre-election bung, we need to know why. Although, of course, Ministers never lie in reply to questions, is it not worth a debate if an answer is so inconsistent with the truth that it is impossible to reconcile the two?

Peter Hain: I do not accept that there is inconsistency with the truth or that there has been any attempt to mislead the hon. Gentleman. The Secretaries of State concerned will note his points and will want to clarify the matter to his satisfaction.

Dennis Skinner: Following the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) regarding the north-east, but in relation to coal generally, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or a statement by the appropriate Minister on UK Coal's activities, which should be investigated? With 49,000 acres of land, some of which will be exploited after the closure of Ellington, UK Coal is more of a property company than a coal company. The Government intervened to replace some of the privatised rail companies that succeeded British Rail, and it is high time that we got rid of UK Coal, which is practising the art of shutting pits; otherwise, there will soon be no pits left. UK Coal is continuing the tradition of Thatcher and Heseltine because it wants to make a lot of money out of the land.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the miners and always has been, and I pay tribute to him for that. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take heed of what he has said, particularly the charge that he has made.
	I find the present situation puzzling. World demand for coal and therefore the price of coal are higher than they have been for a long time, and mine managers in my constituency say their collieries are now in a much better position now than they were years ago. It seems contradictory to be closing pits.

David Burnside: Today—not next week—the Prime Minister is meeting the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA, Gerry Adams, at Chequers. It is the first meeting since the Chief Constable expressed his opinion that IRA was responsible for the biggest bank robbery in British history at the Northern bank. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to come to the House and make a statement to inform the House what sanctions will be imposed on Sinn Fein-IRA? It is not operating as a normal democratic party and its members do not deserve the facilities for democrats who sit in this House.

Peter Hain: I know that that is the hon. Gentleman's view: to his credit, he has expressed it consistently over a number of weeks. However, as I am sure all our constituents understand, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to try to get the peace settlement and the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland back on track, reinforced and locked in. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports that objective and I am sure that he agrees that Sinn Fein is an important part of the democratically elected political landscape in Northern Ireland. The recent criminality involving the IRA is extremely serious; it is why the process has stalled after seeming to reach a promising point. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

George Mudie: The Leader of the House must be aware of the deep concern and genuine unease of staff in the health service, local government and the civil service about Government-proposed policy changes to their pensions, which the House has not had a specific opportunity to discuss. Given that the consultation period ends in March, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the House will be able to discuss the policy changes before the Government take the final decisions?

Peter Hain: Regulations have been laid, but they have not been debated yet, as my hon. Friend said. Of course, there will be an opportunity to scrutinise them. My hon. Friend will understand that there is a difficult choice of the kind that we have to make in government from time to time.
	Everyone, including the trade unions and my hon. Friend, accepts that public sector pensions must be reformed to cope with the problem of an ageing society. Despite the high levels of employment, there are proportionately fewer people in employment to help to fund pensions. The public sector must be reformed, just as we reformed our own salaries. I rebut the charge that Members of Parliament have not reformed their own pensions. We have done so, and we are phasing out early retirement privileges in line with other parts of the public sector. The regulations were introduced to help to create greater funding stability in local government and keep the council tax down. That is one of the difficult balances that the Deputy Prime Minister had to strike.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House look again at the way in which programming operates? Could he look at some of the sound proposals which, sadly, he did not accept, made by the Procedure Committee, in light of the unfortunate situation concerning the Identity Cards Bill? It is very sad that such a critical Bill should leave Standing Committee with many provisions inadequately debated or not debated at all. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give me such an assurance.
	On a matter related to what the Prime Minister said in Davos about climate change, could we have a debate or statement on nuclear energy, one of the few clean sources of mass energy generation, in the near future? That is important, given that world temperatures could rise dramatically by 11 per cent. before the end of the century.

Peter Hain: Climate change is, indeed, a threat to the very existence of the planet. The hon. Gentleman is right, and he shares a common agenda with the Government and the Prime Minister, which is why my right hon. Friend is taking a lead on the issue during our presidency of the G8 countries. Indeed, he promoted a much more effective and radical policy only last night. On the question of the nuclear industry, I do not agree that nuclear power is the only alternative. Renewable sources of energy offer a far more attractive future, both for this country and the world, than continuing to build expensive nuclear plants, which have huge waste legacies and huge liabilities for the Exchequer.
	On the question of programming—of course we will keep it under review. The House made a decision on the matter only a few months ago, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman was robust in holding a different view. However, we will look at the issue. He will concede that whatever difficulties have arisen in relation to the Identity Cards Bill, programming works well and consensually in most cases. However, that appears not to be the case with that Bill.

John Cryer: This is not the question that I was originally going to ask, but following the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the UK coal industry, coal has become such a pressing national issue that it has to be examined. The deep-mine industry has fallen into the clutches of a bunch of asset-strippers who, even when offered money by the Government, have pressed ahead with pit closures, using Government money for redundancy payments. Given that background, there is only one answer—public intervention and public ownership. Otherwise, within a decade, we will not have any deep mines left in Britain, so we need a debate or at least a statement.

Peter Hain: If my hon. Friend's pessimistic forecast—I am not suggesting that it is unrealistic in the circumstances—were true, the worldwide demand for clean coal, particularly from China and India, should mean that Britain is a position to contribute by exporting technology and expertise. The end of coal would therefore be a counter-productive strategy. Indeed, given the high demand for coal, it is difficult to envisage such a strategy being employed, but the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is well aware of the difficulties, and will have noted his powerful point.

Hywel Williams: Could we have a statement from the Home Secretary on standards for answering correspondence to the Home Office? I contacted the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 15 September about threats to some of my constituents and organised harassment of a local company. As I did not receive a reply, I wrote again on 2 November, and again on 15 November, marking my letter "urgent". I accept that the right hon. Gentleman had other concerns at the time, but on 16 December, I wrote to the new Home Secretary congratulating him on his appointment and asking him for a reply. Here we are on 27 January, and I still have not heard anything. That is either gross discourtesy or gross incompetence, and I should like the Home Secretary to come to the House to answer for himself.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation. He is entitled to early replies on important constituency matters. There are Home Office questions on Monday, so he can remind the Home Secretary of that. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend will have noted the point that he made, and that the problem will be resolved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that hon. Members should ask one question, which should be brief and about next week's business.

Wayne David: Given that we now have a fair question before us on a forthcoming EU constitutional referendum, can we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on the importance of strong EU external border controls?

Peter Hain: Indeed, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to strong EU border and immigration controls, and we are prepared to continue spending the money and investing it to ensure that our border controls and security are tightened up against illegal migration. By contrast, alternative proposals from the Conservatives would result in savage cuts in immigration and border control budgets, as well as the adoption of systems that are far too expensive. The Australian system, for example, would cost £50,000 per head, which does not square with existing spending patterns or fiscal probity.

Andrew MacKay: I hesitate to be harsh with the poor Leader of the House after his humiliation at the hands of the Government Whips yesterday, when all his motions were defeated on the Floor of the House. However, I take issue with his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), and his suggestion that filibustering had taken place during the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill. That is a direct attack on the senior and distinguished Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). The Leader of the House will recall that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had to come to the House and apologised for making allegations of filibustering, which are an attack on the Chair. Would the Leader of the House like to apologise to my hon. Friend?

Peter Hain: I am advised that the Chairman repeatedly intervened in Committee, and tried to call Conservative Back Benchers to order. The Conservative Front Bench is all over the place in its policy on identity cards, as there is complete disagreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary. That may well be reflected in the chaos among Tory Back Benchers and the filibustering in Committee.
	On the question of sitting hours, I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman voted in the same Lobby as me. [Interruption.] No, it is not a question of humiliation. I put a motion before the House with a clear choice, and it was carried. I voted against the amendment and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I would have preferred to keep the 7 o'clock conclusion. My job as Leader of the House is to try to enable the House to come to consensus. We did so last night, as there was a clear decision, unlike the last time this was decided, and that is that.

Richard Shepherd: Now that the Home Secretary has announced his intention to seek urgently powers of house arrest over British citizens—and, incidentally, put us on a par with Burma and Zimbabwe—will the Leader of the House make sure that he makes a statement next week confirming that there will be no guillotines or timetables on such an important matter, and furthermore that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will have enough time between First and Second Reading to report to both Houses of Parliament, so that when the matter is discussed on the Floor of the House we are in a position to examine the matter in hand properly?

Peter Hain: Of course that is an important matter. The exact handling of any legislation will be discussed and agreed through the usual channels. It is an agonisingly difficult choice for anyone involved in Government and for the whole House to strike a balance between what the Home Secretary is proposing and any better solution to the problem. It is important that those who have been involved in terrorist activity, or of whom we have intelligence that they are involved in terrorist activity and could, for all I know, be plotting to blow up the House of Commons, are dealt with properly, and at the same time that the rule of law applies and civil liberties are protected as far as possible.
	The Home Secretary set out his proposals in a statement to the House, quite properly, and he was questioned about them, but he made it clear that those proposals were part of a debate in order to strike the right balance. I note that the Muslim Council of Britain, for example, has welcomed the proposals, pointing out that they end the discrimination between foreign and British citizens. The council wants to see a situation where civil liberties are protected but we are properly guarded against the threat of suicide bombers and the like. I am sure that is what everybody wants, including the hon. Gentleman.

Martin Salter: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), the Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 579.
	[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3372), dated 17th December 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]
	It seeks, in the form of a prayer, to annul statutory instrument 3372. That would have the effect of reducing the pension rights of hundreds of thousands of local government workers, and it was laid by the Government, rather disgracefully, on the last day before Christmas. How many signatures do we need to get on early-day motion 579 before the House is granted a debate and a vote on such a vital issue, which will affect the terms and conditions of many of our constituents?

Peter Hain: I have dealt with the substance of the matter, but on my hon. Friend's question about how it will proceed, the Government are aware, as is the Deputy Prime Minister, of the strength of feeling reflected in the early-day motion, which my hon. Friend expressed, quite properly, and which was also expressed earlier. We will bear that in mind as we take the statutory instrument through and deal with it, as we must, before the House.

Graham Stringer: I, together with other right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in north Manchester, received a very unwelcome fax this morning from Phil Davidson of BAE Systems. The fax announced the end of defence repairs and maintenance at the Chaderton factory. That will mean the complete end of manufacturing at that plant, which has manufactured aeroplanes for more than 70 years, and it will mean the loss of 335 jobs. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week in order that we can discuss whether the Nimrod mark 4 programme can be restarted, as that is probably the only chance that workers at the plant will have of remaining in employment at another manufacturing base in south Manchester?

Peter Hain: I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend's important question on behalf of his constituents. The plant was a flagship local company which, I think I am right in saying, built the Lancaster bomber. It is disappointing that the situation has arisen, although there are huge changes in defence procurement and priorities. I know my right hon. Friends will take careful note and look at the situation in the light of what he said and the campaign that he has led so ably to defend the future of the company.

Douglas Hogg: Can the Leader of the House provide an early debate on the selection of Committees—Select, Standing and other? That is particularly important as, after the election, we will be setting up Select Committees. Does he agree that it is undesirable that those on the Front Benches should have the influence that they now have on the selection of Committees? It would be better by far if membership of a Committee were decided by ballot, with the Selection Committee filling up only the residue.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but the House voted on the matter a couple of years ago and decided against the course that he advocates.

Desmond Turner: Climate change has reached the top of the political agenda. It is one of the two prime topics set out by the Prime Minister for our presidency of the G8 and of the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree, especially in the light of the fact that the Government are currently consulting on a review of climate change policy, that whether nuclear power, renewable energy, both or other measures are important, it is time—a very apposite time—to have a full debate on climate change policy on the Floor of the House?

Peter Hain: I understand the impetus behind my hon. Friend's request. Climate change is one of the most critical issues facing the world and therefore the House. That is why the Prime Minister is leading the international drive towards effective global action to deal with climate change. When there are opportunities to debate it, we will take them.

Alistair Carmichael: Can a small amount of time be made available for the appropriate Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explain to us what representations will be made with regard to the British citizen Kenny Richey, who has been on death row in Ohio for the past 18 years but who this week had his appeal upheld? The court there made an order for his release or retrial within 90 days. That takes this from being a matter relating to the judiciary to a matter that is political. For the Ohio authorities to retry after 18 years a man to whom they gave a plea bargain offering him a sentence of 11 years would be nothing short of outrageous.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As he knows, Her Majesty's consul general has lobbied persistently on the case and may well have had some influence on the outcome. We will monitor it carefully and continue to work on it to see that it is suitably progressed.

Dan Norris: The ill fated Bath spa project is four years overdue and still not open, with no opening date in sight. It is £20 million over budget and it is costing every one of my constituents—every man, woman and child—the equivalent of £116 each in waste. May we please have an urgent debate on local authority spending and some of the madcap councils—the one in question happens to be run by the Liberal Democrats and the Tories—so that we can address the waste? As a Government we provide millions to local authorities. The Opposition parties talk about getting rid of waste, but this example clearly shows that they are off-beam and out of touch.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend paints a horrifying picture of Conservative-Liberal Democrat incompetence and failure to take forward important projects, as the Bath spa project undoubtedly is, in an effective and cost-efficient manner. I hope that the voters of Bath and all the voters in the next general election will bear in mind the prospect of a Labour Government on the one hand, and on the other—who knows?—perhaps a Conservative/Liberal Democrat-supported alternative, which would plunge the country into the boom and bust from which we recently escaped under Labour.

Jacqui Lait: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of the National Lottery Bill? Many charities will have been devastated by the announcement from the Big Lottery Fund that it will not give grants after the end of May. If he cannot promise any early progress on the Bill so that we can see it through this Parliament before the end of May, will he please ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the charities Minister to make a statement to the House about what the Government plan to do to help the charities that find themselves in such a terrible pickle?

Peter Hain: DCMS and Home Office Ministers will want to pay careful attention to the point that the hon. Lady has made.

David Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 593, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), myself and others?
	[That this House notes the decision of England World Cup winning captain Martin Johnson to announce his retirement from rugby at the end of this season; congratulates him on his outstanding contribution to Leicester Tigers, England and the British Lions over the last 15 years, culminating in England's Rugby World Cup victory in Sydney in November 2003, after success at club, international and Lions level; praises him for the respect in which he is held throughout the world of sport; and wishes him every success in his retirement.]
	The motion marks this week's announcement of the retirement of one of the towering figures of global rugby, Martin Johnson, whose 15 years in the game culminated in the English world cup victory in Sydney. My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that those achievements are well worth the knighthood that has been accorded to leading figures in other sports, but can he find time in next week's programme for a debate on the importance of international sport in promoting both individual well-being and the international standing, and indeed the economy, of the United Kingdom?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As Secretary of State for Wales, may I say how much I praise Martin Johnson, particularly as he ferociously led the England pack against Wales on far too many occasions? I know that the England team's performance since the heroic victory that he led in the world cup in Sydney has not been as good without his leadership. From Wales's point of view, that is a very good thing, especially since Wales is going to hammer England on Saturday week in the Millennium stadium.

David Cameron: The Leader of the House can keep dreaming.
	May we have an urgent debate on the implementation of the new railway timetable that was introduced in December? Now we have had the timetable for more than a month, it is quite clear in Oxfordshire that it is neither being delivered nor is it deliverable. Some services have almost never run on time. There is suspicion that the timetable benefits cities and harms rural areas, and genuine anger is building up. Can we have a debate early next week so that Ministers can hear in public just how bad things are on our rural railways?

Peter Hain: It is always difficult to get a timetable that satisfies absolutely everybody, but I am sure that there was no intention—the Secretary of State for Transport would not have agreed to it either—that rural services would be discriminated against in favour of cities or towns. Equally, I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to respond to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of his constituency.

Michael Weir: Is the Leader of the House aware of the concerns in Scotland about the proposal concerning aggravated trespass on royal or Crown lands in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill? Can he confirm whether the UK Government will press ahead and legislate on this matter for Scotland even if the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament decide that it is properly an issue for the Scottish Parliament and decide to uphold the legislative decisions that they made on this very issue just last year in their landmark Land Reform Act? If he cannot tell the House the position, can the Home Secretary come to the House, preferably today, to address the important question of who calls the shots in making law in a devolved area for Scotland?

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I point out that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill will have its remaining stages on Monday 7 February, as I announced just now. He will have an opportunity to put his point of view on that occasion. Meanwhile, I know that Home Office Ministers will have noted what he said.

Hugh Robertson: The report of the Iraq survey group and the initial report of the Volker inquiry both highlighted the extent of corruption at the United Nations during the oil-for-food scandal. Given that we now know that Saddam Hussein and his personal entourage benefited to the tune of $10 billion from that corruption and that the Secretary of State for Defence in this House has made a link between that money and the funding of the insurgency that is currently threatening the lives of British troops and civilians in Iraq, may we have a debate in Government time on the oil-for-food scandal, particularly so that we can find out whether the Government believe that the fault lies inside the UN itself or with the Security Council, which was constantly warned but took no action?

Peter Hain: As a Minister between 1999 and 2001, when the policy was enforced, I was concerned about the amount of oil being smuggled on Saddam's behalf and about the way in which the oil-for-food programme had been working. I am sure that there was no deliberate attempt on behalf of the Security Council or the United Nations Secretary-General or his officials to do that. The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious charge, and I know that the Foreign Secretary will want to consider it very carefully.
	I make one other brief point: of course, what we knew was that Saddam was propping up his tyranny by the illegal raking off of oil-for-food money and oil revenues. That would still be going on if he were still in power. When we look at the balance on whether the military action was right or wrong, we have to decide whether, with all the difficulties that exist at the moment—I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on this—an Iraq moving into democracy provides a better future for the Iraqi people than an Iraq trapped under Saddam's murderous and corrupt tyranny.

Robert Smith: Earlier, in answer to questions on the scrutiny of the Identity Cards Bill, the Leader of the House said that there was division in the Conservative party on the Bill, and I think he will recognise that there is also division in his own party. Is it not precisely the time when Parliament should give maximum time to scrutiny of legislation when those on the Back Benches and Front Benches are not speaking with one voice? That is when Parliament can fulfil its greatest function in ensuring maximum scrutiny of legislation. Was it not only yesterday that, in speaking to his own report to the House, the Leader of the House recognised that there are currently at least two hours less time for debate on Thursdays than on any other day of business? Why has he scheduled this measure, which is controversial and divisive in the House, for debate on a day when there is less time for scrutiny, and when the Bill itself has not had proper scrutiny in its Standing Committee?

Peter Hain: I simply do not accept the charge as made. I have dealt with the point already, but let me look at the progress of the Identity Cards Bill a few days ago on 25 January. At column 228 of the Committee proceedings, the Chairman said:
	"I am sure that the hon. Member for Cotswold will not be tempted to debate how many people live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because that is not relevant to the amendment".
	A few minutes later, he said:
	"This is not a stand part debate",
	and he went on to say:
	"Order. I am sorry, but the intervention is long and it is not relevant to the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25 January 2005; c. 228–29.]
	I could go on and on for pages upon pages of the Official Report. The truth is that I can only assume that a deliberate attempt has been made by those who are opposed to the Bill—I do not really know whether the Conservatives are opposed to it, but the Liberal Democrats certainly are, and we will remind the electors of that at the next general election—to filibuster the Bill and then say that it has not been debated properly.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has shamefully described the proceedings in the Identity Cards Bill Committee as involving a filibuster. When the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made that point to the Chairman of the Committee, however, he said:
	"If the hon. Member for Woking",
	who was speaking in this particular instance,
	"had been filibustering, I would have called him to order by now."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2005; c. 202.]
	Although it is correct that, from the time to time, the Chairmen, as they always do, have made particular points, there has been no single occasion in the whole of the passage of the Bill on which anybody has been successfully accused of filibustering. In fact, no Chairman would allow it. In those circumstances, should not the Leader of the House withdraw, as the Home Secretary had to do in November 2003, and apologise to the House and to the Chair for the way in which he has gone on?

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, when one looks at just one sitting of the Committee, the fifth sitting on Tuesday morning, and sees the string of interventions from the Chair calling the Committee to order, one sees that it is way beyond the normal practice of chairing a Committee. If what happened was not filibustering in the precise meaning of the term, it was pretty close to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Filibustering is a term that means different things to different people on different occasions. I am quite sure that the Chairman of the Committee would have called any Member to order if they were deliberately filibustering. I think that we ought now to leave the matter where it is.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Railways Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Provision of First Class Passenger Accommodation

'Any proposal to withdraw first class passenger accommodation from an existing service shall be deemed to be a proposal to discontinue a service under Part 4 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Chope]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 52, in clause 32, page 33, line 21, at end insert—
	'(e)   a report by the Rail Passengers' Council concerning the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the proposal.'.
	No. 53, in clause 33, page 34, line 43, at end insert—
	'(1A)   A closure ratification notice applying specifically to passenger services shall not be construed as applying to freight services.'.
	No 5, in page 41, line 38, leave out Clause 39.
	No. 30, in clause 39, page 42, line 49, at end insert
	'"railway" has its wider meaning for the purposes of the Railways Act 1993; and'.
	Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

Christopher Chope: The new clause would require proper consultation and discussion in respect of any proposal to withdraw first class passenger accommodation from an existing railway service. Discontinuing a first-class service would be put on a par with discontinuing any other service and trigger the consultation arrangements under part IV of the Bill.
	Why is the new clause necessary? We believe that the Government have a covert agenda to ameliorate overcrowding on the railways by converting first-class accommodation to second class, instead of by expanding capacity.

John McDonnell: I hope that that is right.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Heathrow Express is an example of a better form of practice. When faced with increasing demand it increased the number of carriages on each service from 8 am to 9 am. That, surely, is a better way of responding to increased demand than by eliminating first class.

Brian H Donohoe: It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that the Heathrow Express is about to lose its first-class compartments.

Christopher Chope: If that is so, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that should be the subject of consultation and discussion with people who use the airport and that service. If that is the proposal and it is coupled with the threat hanging over the Gatwick Express, it drives a coach and horses through the Government's lip service to integrated transport. We need to ensure that our main airport hubs are linked by good quality transport to the central conurbation. That includes ensuring that public transport is of sufficient quality to appeal to those who aspire to travelling first class, as I suspect most hon. Members do, certainly when they are on official parliamentary business.
	First-class accommodation is used by a variety of people. Many of them are vulnerable, elderly, have disabilities or are expectant mothers

John McDonnell: Some of them are rich.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps some of them are rich. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his agenda for levelling down, let him join in the debate. Many people who use first-class accommodation are probably significantly less well off than he is, but choose to do so because they feel that if they were to travel standard class, as it is called, their health would be in jeopardy. A recent example was raised only yesterday in a debate in Westminster Hall of a pregnant lady who lost her child as a result of overcrowding on the train. We know that some of the more enlightened train operating companies, such as South West Trains, Thameslink and South Eastern Trains, offer complimentary first class upgrades to pregnant women holding season tickets when no seats are available in standard class. Obviously, they could not do that if there was no first-class accommodation.
	Others using first-class accommodation have private or confidential work to do on the train, such as Government Ministers. Others choose to pay a premium—an unregulated fare—to provide more space and comfort and a better chance of obtaining a seat. That is particularly true of people joining busy commuter lines at intermediate stations. On the line that I use between Christchurch and Waterloo, it is possible for people joining the train at Christchurch or Hinton Admiral to get a seat, but for those who join at Winchester, for example, it is almost impossible. Many people are prepared to pay a premium fare so that they can have a seat in first class. A similar situation arises on many commuter lines into Paddington, including the Chippenham and Didcot lines.
	First-class accommodation is also used in connection with high value added tourism services, which are particularly important for rural economies. The Great Western mainline route utilisation strategy, published by the Strategic Rail Authority in January, contained the expression,
	"Alteration to the mix of first and standard class seating".
	That was as a possible means of increasing capacity. The Daily Telegraph picked that up in a report on 13 January under the byline of the transport correspondent.
	"A scheme to ease train overcrowding by reducing the number of first-class seats was put forward by Government rail advisers yesterday.
	The Strategic Rail Authority said peak-time congestion on routes into London Paddington could be trimmed by converting premium accommodation to standard-class on turbo commuter trains and some high-speed services.
	However, it also suggested that the gain in seats would be wiped out by the expected growth in passenger numbers within 12 months.
	The SRA ruled out more ambitious plans for faster journeys and increased frequencies on grounds of cost, and warned there was little prospect of improving capacity or punctuality before 2011."
	That is the sorry saga of this Bill and its background. It is a Bill to enable the Government to take control of a railway service which will be in decline in future because of a lack of investment. Because the Government have been embarrassed by the demand of the independent rail regulator, they have decided to circumvent the powers of that regulator and take more control of the service. That is why the Government are making themselves directly responsible for whether there will be first-class seats on mainline commuter services into London.
	The story goes on. The Daily Telegraph correspondent went on to say:
	"The SRA strategy was criticised by consumer groups. Mike Greedy, of the Western England regional passenger committee, said, 'If we want major improvement in rail services, there has to be substantial investment. Otherwise we stand no chance at all of encouraging people to switch to rail from the car.'"
	It is the Government's agenda and is explicit in the Bill that people like Mr. Greedy, who serve diligently on the regional passenger committee, will be out of a job because the Government are abolishing regional passenger committees and centralising them. It is much more convenient for the Government if there are no people like Mr. Greedy to comment on their actions.
	I raised those issues in Committee. The Minister described my questions as "idle fantasies and speculation". He then went on to describe them as "patent nonsense". I sought an assurance that the Government would not allow train operators to withdraw first-class accommodation on long distance commuter services to London, but I received no reply. I have asked about this on other occasions and the Minister has ducked and weaved and refused to confront this important issue.
	The new clause gives the Government a chance to clarify their intentions in relation to the future of first-class rail travel. It ensures that if there are to be changes involving perhaps the withdrawal of first class, those changes should first be subject to proper consultation with the travelling public, as is required under part IV of the Bill.

Graham Stringer: I rise to speak to amendment No. 30 to clause 39—the so called bustitution clause of the Bill. I also tabled amendment No. 29, which was not selected by Mr. Speaker.
	I want to explore the scope and practical impact of clause 39. Where a train service is reduced or removed in a passenger transport authority area, clause 39 provides that that train service will be replaced by a bus service, so that the people who previously used the train have a bus service. It goes further than that, however, by allowing passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives to impose a quality contract on bus operators in the area, which effectively means the regulation of those buses—even if train services are not being removed, it is good to re-regulate buses in metropolitan areas.
	My questions concern the practicality and limits of clause 39. To explore those questions, one must realise that transport in metropolitan areas is not run by benign bus companies that deliver services efficiently, effectively and economically. In my part of Greater Manchester, the service is dominated by First group, which has an appalling record on punctuality and bus maintenance. In a recent inspection, the wheels were found to be falling off three of the buses, which is not unusual. In Yorkshire, an inspection of 96 vehicles found that more than half of them were not fit to be on the road.
	The environment is not benign. I have met representatives from Arriva, First group and other bus companies, who do not like the idea of regulation. One of the reasons why they do not like it is simple: those bus companies make 14 per cent. profit in metropolitan areas outside London and 8 per cent. profit in Greater London, where the system is regulated. The regulated bus system in London works effectively and efficiently, unlike the system in other metropolitan areas in this country. The bus companies do not want to co-operate in providing a comprehensive integrated transport system. They provide services to give them the greatest possible bottom line, and they compete on the road in order to do so—sometimes they compete, but sometimes they form cartels and monopolies in order to make profits.
	How does clause 39 overcome the problem of section 124 of the Transport Act 2000, which states how PTAs and PTEs can introduce quality contracts? The Government are reducing the timetable for consultation in section 124 to six months, which is welcome. However, section 124 also states that quality contracts may be introduced when they are the only practical way to provide bus services in an area. That is a high hurdle over which the PTAs and PTEs must jump. My reading of clause 39 is that section 124 of the 2000 Act remains, so that hurdle must still be overcome. Will the Minister explain how quality contracts can be implemented if bus companies are determined to change their services? Under the deregulated system, bus companies often provide services that they withdraw immediately after the consultation period. Clause 39 is defective and will not achieve its objective.
	Clause 39 is also ambiguous. In Committee, we had an interesting debate—I thought that it was interesting, although I do not know whether the Minister agrees—about how far a quality contract can be extended following the de minimis withdrawal of a train service. If one train were removed from one commuter line in south Yorkshire or Greater Manchester, would clause 39 allow the regulation of all buses in south Yorkshire or Greater Manchester? I hope that the Government intended to leave that wonderful loophole to improve the delivery of bus services in metropolitan areas, but I do not think that that was their intention.
	The limits of the quality contracts are not clear. In Committee, the Minister gave the helpful reply that quality contracts do not mean a substitute bus running alongside a railway line to the same timetable, and that the replacement service will be integrated into the rest of the system, but he did not provide a clear answer on how far that contract can go. Amendment No. 29 is designed to explore those issues so that we do not implement defective legislation that does not allow PTAs to introduce quality contracts when the conditions described in the Bill occur. The matter is important and we must get it right. As I said earlier, a regulated system would have merit without clause 39, but if clause 39 is included, I hope that it will be used to introduce a regulated bus service.

Elfyn Llwyd: On new clause 1, although I appreciate that it is helpful to have first class and standard class on most lines, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) over-egged his pudding. I often travel by first-class rail, but I also often travel standard class from north Wales to south Wales, and I am in reasonable health after doing so. To suggest that travelling by standard class is a health risk is beyond the bounds of credibility.
	Amendment No. 52 seeks to introduce a further paragraph in clause 32(4), which concerns references to the Office of Rail Regulation. Railways are an integral part of the economy. They provide not only transport, but social, environmental and economic benefits. I hope that the Government will look favourably on amendment No. 52, which would complement clause 32(4) and round off the criteria for references to the Office of Rail Regulation. As it stands, clause 32(4) merely refers to "consultation" and does not refer either obliquely or plainly to the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of the proposal being referred to the Office of Rail Regulation. I hope that the Minister can respond to that amendment, and possibly even accept it—I live in hope.
	Amendment No. 53 is a probing amendment, which states:
	"A closure ratification notice applying specifically to passenger services shall not be construed as applying to freight services."
	If the Minister is prepared to tell me whether that is the case, the amendment will have been worth while. I hope that he can respond one way or t'other.
	I will be brief because I know that Members wish to speak to other important amendments. I look forward to the Minister's response.

John McDonnell: I tabled amendment No. 5 simply to allow me to express concerns in the rail industry and elsewhere about the process of—I hate the word—bustitution. The post-Beeching experience shows us that where such substitution bus services were introduced they often did not survive for long. We therefore need to take great care as regards any legislation that enables passenger transport authorities to undertake them.
	Members on both sides of the House support the concept of quality controls with regard to bus quality contracts. London's regulated bus service has proved a success. However, it is strange that the Bill introduces bus quality contracts solely in relation to rail substitution services. What will the Government do to ensure that bus regulation is promoted throughout the country using bus quality contracts? It is unusual and bizarre to link that solely to the removal of railway services. I am concerned that if we allow the clause to go forward without further refinement, bus substitution services that are provided after rail service cuts will ultimately be cut once again, as they were after the Beeching regime.

Mark Field: I fear that it falls to Conservative Members to defend the interests of first-class rail passengers. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made some serious points. If high-quality passenger accommodation is available on all our trains, more people will use public transport, including those who might have been dissuaded from doing so in the past. In Heathrow, for example, taxi traffic may have been reduced as a result of the Heathrow Express. That would have more effect in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) than in other parts of London. Does the Minister have any evidence that high-quality new services such as the Heathrow Express and Gatwick Express, with first-class accommodation, make a contribution to getting traffic off the roads? If not, will he conduct such a survey?
	The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) is sensible, but it shows a certain of degree of wishful thinking on his part about what goes on in London. While I would not want to gainsay anything said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, there are problems with the highly-regulated bus transport market in a broader sense, as well as in relation to bustitution. A significant amount of work is taking place on the tube and rail networks in the capital, often at weekends. There are very effective bustitution arrangements to deal with that, and I must give credit to Transport for London for doing a good job in that regard. As I live and work in central London, I use the buses regularly. I would be the first to say that there have been improvements to that service over the past four years under Mayor Livingstone. However, I am afraid that they have come at a great cost, which I suspect that he rather hoped would be underwritten by the Treasury. That has not happened, with the result that TFL faces losses of up to £1 billion a year from its budget for 2007–08.

Graham Stringer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the regulated system that existed in London before it had a Mayor worked better than in the other metropolitan areas? It lost virtually no passengers between 1985 and 1999, when other cities lost 30 to 40 per cent. of their passengers; and before Mayor Livingstone, there was no subsidy. It was not a perfect system, but it worked better than elsewhere in the country, and we should have the benefit of that kind of system.

Mark Field: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I consider Manchester to be this country's second city, partly because my in-laws live in Wilmslow, about 12 miles away from it. That is probably also why I can pronounce the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency better than most southerners. He makes an entirely fair point. London's bus system has been pretty sophisticated, and regulation has helped. Transport for London does a good job in that regard, but there is a cost to be paid.
	In central London, in particular, we have the problem of an enormous number of services, particularly in places such as Oxford street and Trafalgar square, where one sees bus after bus. That reminds me of what happened after the much-criticised deregulation of the market. In the mid-1980s, Oxford, where I was an undergraduate, had a massively deregulated market, and it was well-known that in Cornmarket one would see eight or nine buses from different companies all heading out towards London within five minutes of one another.
	Here in London, things are not quite so simple. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to what was said by Labour Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who made a powerful case in relation not only to public safety but the broadening out of the use of our railways. That will be an important step forward if we are to get as much traffic off our roads as possible. The issue goes well beyond passenger traffic, as we also need to get as much freight as possible off our roads and on to rail.
	Congestion is not only a problem for central London. Within the next few weeks, there will be a referendum on congestion charging zones in Edinburgh, and that may happen in other parts of the country. The railways must be part of the solution in the months, years and decades ahead.

John Thurso: The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the case of Mrs. Janice Norman, the lady who lost her baby after being poked in the stomach while travelling a few weeks previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been pursuing the matter. When I raised it in Committee, I was reassured by what the Minister said and therefore withdrew my new clause on a campaign for considerate commuting. I do not necessarily accept that there is a link between that case and travelling first class.
	I am attracted to the new clause not on health grounds but on the simple premise that where a service is introduced with certain criteria, and that service is to be withdrawn, it is right that the public should have an opportunity to be consulted.
	Moreover, we know from the figures on traffic growth that it stems mostly from more affluent drivers, and if we are to persuade them to come off the road and get on to the train, it will often be necessary to provide a premium service.
	I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for explaining the point of new clause 1. However, I do not support his aim or the conspiratorial fantasies that lie behind it and I have grave reservations about the practical effect of the new clause.
	The discontinuance provisions in part 4 are designed to deal with proposals to do away with a passenger service or close a station or part of the network. Those are specific matters. To protect passengers' interests, the procedures that have to be followed in those circumstances are set out in the Bill and are rightly rigorous. They rightly received a good deal of scrutiny in Committee. On the other hand, withdrawing first-class accommodation from a particular route or service might affect some passengers. However, there is a difference for a community between having a rail service that is more or less convenient than the existing one and having no service. The procedures in part 4 are designed to deal with only the latter.
	I am also concerned about the practicalities. There is no incentive to take away first-class accommodation where it is well used and every incentive for the operator to get the balance right for the benefit of all customers. That makes sense if it is thought through. There is no sense in requiring operators to run trains with almost empty first-class seats when there is little demand and at times when standard-class passengers cannot get a seat. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's concern has been prompted by First Great Western's route utilisation strategy, which includes proposals to alter the mix of first and standard-class seating on some routes. If that is implemented, it would be a further factor for consideration in addition to the train operating companies' commercial judgment.
	However, the essential principle still applies: imposing a statutory procedure will seriously inhibit operators' flexibility to respond to changing demand and others' ability to propose to them that they might do so. Although the new clause might appear to defend the interests of specific sets of passengers, it does nothing for passengers as a whole—first-class, standard-class, steerage or whatever else exists—because it would restrict operators' flexibility to respond to the passengers about whom the hon. Gentleman seems to be concerned.
	The proposal also appears to raise some complicated issues of definition, because it refers simply to first class. There is no industry-wide definition of first class. At least one operator has no first class as such, but offers a choice of standard and club. The new clause would not cover that. Others have intermediate categories such as silver standard. Again, the new clause does not reflect that. Each offers the passenger a slightly different package, and even when first-class accommodation is advertised as such, the precise service varies from operator to operator.
	Those who want to travel first class do not do so in the hope that there will be three first-class carriages on a train; they simply want a seat in first-class accommodation. It does not matter to the business community, or whoever the hon. Gentleman meant, whether three carriages or one carriage separate them from the riff-raff—the clear implication of his remarks—so long as they get the service for which they paid. That only reinforces my view that we should avoid statutory constraints on operators' commercial freedom to offer different services and that any attempt to impose them would throw up serious problems of definition and practicality.
	In short, the new clause is impracticable as well as undesirable, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
	Let me deal with the other amendments briefly. Amendment No. 52 would impose a new duty on the Rail Passengers Council to provide a report on the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of a closure proposal as part of the material accompanying a reference to the Office of Rail Regulation in clause 32.
	I take the points that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the initiator of the proposal would already have carried out such an assessment. That body, either an operator or railway funding authority, is under a duty to assess the effects of a closure proposal according to the closures guidance that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be, have a duty to provide under clause 42.
	Earlier this week, I sent the Chairman of Standing Committee A, which deliberated on the Bill, a note setting out current thoughts on the contents of the closures guidance. A copy is in the Library. The note states that any assessment of a closure proposal should cover the costs and benefits of environmental, economic, safety, accessibility and integration effects. Those of course include the effects on passengers, freight users and operators, as well as on the environment. Assuming that the Bill obtains Royal Assent, we shall consult on the draft closures guidance before the main network modification provisions are brought into force. The Office of Rail Regulation's role is to ensure that the assessment is carried out in accordance with the guidance and that it meets any criteria in it. That provides important independent input into the procedures.
	Requiring the Rail Passengers Council to do a similar assessment could put considerable strain on its resources only to replicate work that has already been done. I therefore accept the thrust and import of the amendment but believe that, although the hon. Gentleman's points were well made, the headlines of the closures guidance that we have already issued cover them. I hope that he accepts that.
	Amendment No. 53 appears to intend to exclude freight services from the network modification procedures in the Bill. Again, I respectfully suggest that that is unnecessary as the provisions in the Bill for discontinuing services apply only to passenger services, as do the current procedures—which we seek to replicate in the new settlement for the industry—in the Railways Act 1993.
	However, that is most definitely not to say that freight operators or customers have no input into the network modification procedures. The note on closures guidance clearly states our intention that the final guidance will make it clear that, if freight services are affected by a closure proposal, the impact on freight users and operators must be assessed and taken into account when developing the proposals. Furthermore, if freight operators are affected by the proposal, schedule 7(3)(2)(k) provides for a statutory duty to consult them. I would also expect freight customers to be consulted under those circumstances. Although the network modification elements of the measure refer specifically to passenger services, other components protect the role of freight on rail lines and parts of the network.
	Let me deal with the amendments to clause 39. We have a sort of dichotomy, because one amendment would remove it altogether and the other would extend it to light rail and other guided systems. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) that amendment No. 30 would make more sense had amendment No. 29 also been selected.
	With regard to amendment No 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled, I accept the concerns, which are rooted in history, about all the promises that were made at the time of Beeching for a host of bus services to replace many of the rail lines that were to close. The substitution of buses was either not forthcoming or happened for only a short time.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said, there is a regulatory framework in statute in the Transport Act 2000, suitably adjusted with regard to timing. We made it clear in the July White Paper on the role of transport in the broader sense, not the rail White Paper, that we are trying to encourage authorities, especially in urban areas, to devise far-sighted, radical and integrated transport packages for all modes of transport. In that context, we would be happy to make the bus service operators grant and other elements available to the authorities so that they had far more control over the buses and could replicate something similar to the semi-regulated position that pertains in London.

Paul Truswell: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend has just said, but does he accept that the only practicable way of introducing quality contracts would involve a virtually insurmountable hurdle that would ultimately have to be tested in the courts? Will he reconsider whether that test could be reduced, so that there could be a better balance between the interests of passengers and the interests of the operators in making profits?

Tony McNulty: In all candour, I have to say no, I do not accept that. As the Minister with responsibility for buses last year and this year, I have said that I do not believe that local authorities have pushed the regulatory framework in the Transport Act 2000 to its limits, with or without taking into account what we said in the July White Paper. They have not been dilatory, but they have been slow in coming forward with imaginative ways of moving towards a bus quality contract. There are many ways, under the 2000 Act and the proposals in the July White Paper, in which local authorities can move towards affording their communities the required regulatory framework and subsequent bus provision. We stand ready to work with any local authority to push things in that direction, not least in the context of what we said in July. So I do not accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend has just said, although he will know that his view is shared by many of our colleagues, and almost certainly by many people in the passenger transport executives.

Graham Stringer: We are familiar with both sides of this argument. The implication of what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying is that the Secretary of State for Transport can take the decision to agree quality contracts. The strength of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and I is that, while section 124 of the 2000 Act remains, that decision is with the courts, not with the Secretary of State. It is therefore very difficult for any local transport authority to show that its proposals are the only practical way available.

Tony McNulty: There are certainly clear and exacting criteria in the Transport Act 2000. They need to be seen in the light of changes that we have made to the regulatory framework since then, and of the way in which we shall take forward the announcements that we made in July. We are starting to talk seriously with a range of authorities about how all these elements can be brought together, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Pudsey and I will have further deliberations on it with a whole range of other colleagues as well. It is time to talk far more readily about how all the assorted modes can work together and, in that context, whether quality contracts have a role.
	In terms of network modification, it is appropriate to have such measures in the Bill, although I accept the concerns that have been expressed about what prevailed post-Beeching. I do not accept that we are seeking to do something similar. This was debated at length in Committee. Where a local community's transport needs result in a requirement for a quality contract so that buses can replace lines and services that have been discontinued, it makes perfect sense to have one. We discussed the assorted elements involved, and we need to look at the issue in much more detail and do much more work on the substance of how the provisions will work. They could well form part of a broader quality contract that could be brought in for a particular area.
	It is important that the provisions should be in the Bill, but not to facilitate closing another third of the rail network, as Beeching did, while promising to replace the services with buses and then not doing so, or doing so only for the short term. It makes sense that the provisions relating to facilities for bus substitution—I shall not use the horrendous word "bustitution"—be included in the Bill. In this context, it has already been pointed out that amendment No. 30 does not make a whole lot of sense without amendment No. 29, and I agree with that. On its own, amendment No. 30 does not fit with the rest of the Bill, although it would have gone alongside the other one. I understand the attraction for passenger transport authorities of including light rail in the provisions, but, given the way in which amendment No. 30 would sit with the rest of the Bill, we do not think that it is appropriate to pursue this matter.

David Clelland: The Minister sounds as though he is saying that he would have some sympathy with amendment No. 30 if it were put in the right context. Would he be prepared to consider this issue again in another place?

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because if that is the impression that I gave, it was entirely illusory. I was merely expressing sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley because amendments Nos. 29 and 30 sat together, and it was a shame that we could discuss only one and not the other. The two should have come as a package. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) for allowing me the opportunity to clarify my position on that; I would not want to mislead him in any way.
	Of the Government amendments at the end of this group, the main one is Government amendment No. 11, which is required to give Scottish Ministers certain powers in relation to rail services, networks and stations that are wholly in Scotland, as well as to certain cross-border services. As clause 44 is currently drafted, only the Secretary of State has those powers. The amendment adds the Scottish dimension in terms of giving the powers to Scottish Ministers. The other two Government amendments are consequential on the thrust of Government amendment No.11.
	Much of our discussion has been on serious issues, and I would ask the House to reject the amendments, other than the Government amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for their comments in support of new clause 1. I would simply say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the circumstances of the average railway passenger on a rural line in Wales are very different from the hustle and bustle involved in commuting into London. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross raised the kind of pertinent questions that would have to be answered if there were a proper consultation process on any proposal to remove a first-class service.
	The Minister resorted to the last desperate line of defence when he said that the problem was that the new clause did not define first-class passenger accommodation. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who does not understand what we mean by that term. To suggest that the new clause is defective because the term is not defined is absurd. The Minister also tried to argue that the withdrawal of first-class accommodation would affect fewer people and be less significant than the closure of a rural station or the withdrawal of a rarely used rural service. Again, I disagree with him, because I believe that the withdrawal of first-class accommodation could, in certain circumstances, affect much larger numbers of people. That is why any such proposals should be subject to consultation, as the new clause suggests.
	What I found most worrying about the Minister's response was his suggestion that the new clause would impose constraints on the freedom of operators. He then conceded, however, that the whole system of the route utilisation strategy will be controlled from the centre by the Government. That in itself will inhibit the freedom of operators to decide what is the best mix of first and standard-class accommodation. So I remain suspicious about the Government's agenda, and the best way forward is to ensure that, if they pursue these proposals, they are forced to consult on them.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. That is not the function of the route utilisation strategy. Its function is to come up with strategies to use the route and eventually feed that into the franchise templates against which all operators will bid.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has done nothing to allay my concerns. He says that route utilisation strategies will feed into the specification that is used for the franchisees to bid against. I submit that, if one is a potential franchisee, and one does not bid against the specification laid down by the centre, one's chances of success in that franchise bidding are very small.
	The only way to allay the increasing concerns of those who travel first class occasionally or frequently, particularly on main routes into London, is to ensure that they would be given proper notice and have the chance to express their views through consultation. I therefore hope that the House will support new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 220.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Railway Functions of Passenger Transport Executives in Scotland

(1)   Before—
	(a)   issuing an invitation to tender for a franchise agreement in a case in which the services to be provided under the agreement are or include services in which a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in Scotland have an interest, or
	(b)   entering into a franchise agreement in respect of such services in a case in which no such invitation has been issued, the Scottish Minister must consult the Executive for that area.
	(2)   For the purposes of subsection (1) the services in which a Passenger Transport Executive has an interest are—
	(a)   services for the carriage of passengers by railway within the passenger transport area of that Executive; and
	(b)   services which are not such services but are services for the carriage of passengers by railway to or from such an area.
	(3)   A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland and the Scottish Minister may enter into arrangements under which one or both of the following occurs—
	(a)   sums become due from the Executive to the Scottish Minister in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area or in respect of station services or bus substitution services provided within that area; and
	(b)   the Scottish Minister undertakes to exercise or perform his powers and duties in relation to or in connection with such services in a particular way.
	(4)   A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may enter into agreements for purposes relating to or connected with the provision, by a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, of—
	(a)   services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area; and
	(b)   station services provided for purposes connected with any such services.
	(5)   A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may not enter into an agreement (whether by virtue of subsection (4) or otherwise)—
	(a)   with a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, or
	(b)   with a person who is proposing to become such a franchisee or franchise operator, unless the agreement is approved by the Scottish Minister.
	(6)   The Scottish Minister may—
	(a)   give a general approval for the purposes of subsection (5) in relation to a description of agreements, as well as specific approvals for particular agreements; and
	(b)   withdraw his approval in relation to any agreement at any time before the agreement is entered into.
	(7)   The agreements to which a Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may become a party with the approval of the Scottish Minister include franchise agreements under which services are provided which are or include services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area.
	(8)   The Scottish Minister and the Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland must each provide to the other any information which—
	(a)   the other reasonably requires for purposes connected with his or their functions in relation to railways or railway services; and
	(b)   is information which it would have been lawful for him or (as the case may be) them to disclose apart from this subsection.
	(9)   In this section—
	(a)   a reference to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway within a passenger transport area is a reference to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway between places in that area or between places in that area and places outside it which are within the permitted distance;
	(b)   a reference to station services provided within such an area is a reference to station services provided in connection with any such service for the carriage of passengers by railway; and
	(c)   a reference to a bus substitution service provided within such an area is a reference to a bus substitution service for the carriage of passengers between places in that area or between places in that area and places outside it which are within the permitted distance; and in this subsection "the permitted distance" has the same meaning as in section 10(1)(ii) of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) (25 miles).'.—[Mr. Davidson]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Ian Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in clause 5, page 5, line 38 at end insert
	'and they shall concurrently publish in full the reasons for adopting the strategy or revised strategy.'.
	No. 7, in clause 13, page 12, line 2, at end insert 'in England'.

Ian Davidson: The Conservatives have just fought for the rights of first-class passengers; I want to speak up for people in Strathclyde.
	The amendments are intended to maintain equality between Scotland and England in terms of the role of passenger transport executives in the rail franchising process. Although the Bill will devolve significant additional powers over the railway network in Scotland to Scottish Ministers, it does not confer any additional legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament. The primary legislation governing the relationship between Ministers and regional authorities on railway matters will remain reserved to this Parliament. Consequently, unless the Bill gets it right, there is a real risk of a gap in the statutory chain, which could both fetter the future discretion of Scottish Ministers and frustrate the effective delivery of integrated transport in the west of Scotland.
	This is not just a matter of legal niceties. It is of fundamental importance to my constituents, and to the 44 million passengers who use the Strathclyde rail network each year. Rail travel accounts for more than a quarter of all fare-paid journeys in the Strathclyde area, and the level of railway use in the west of Scotland is second only to that in Greater London. The railway network is therefore a core component in the regional transport system in Strathclyde. It is also undoubtedly a key reason why there are proportionately fewer car journeys in Strathclyde than in the rest of Scotland.
	In other words, we are looking at a balance between private and public transport in the west of Scotland that clearly goes with the grain of the Government's national transport and sustainability objectives. It is important that the Bill should not undermine the continued delivery of integrated transport in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport area, and therefore unwittingly work against the wider policy objectives that the Government have set themselves.
	The relatively healthy state of affairs in the west of Scotland's transport is not simply a happy accident. It is the result of more than 30 years of conscious political choice and deliberate financial decisions by accountable regional bodies that had the will and the means to influence directly the delivery of local railway services as part of an integrated transport system. Strathclyde regional council, of which I was a member—as was the Minister: I hope she will bear that in mind when she replies—invested more than £400 million in developing the local railway network while it was the passenger transport authority for the area. Since railway privatisation, the successor PTA has spent over £50 million of discretionary funding in service and network enhancements, and a recent study by consultants appointed by the Scottish Executive has shown that more than half the growth in traffic and revenue on the Strathclyde rail network during the 1990s was directly due to initiatives by the PTA and the PTE.
	Such an outcome is clear proof of the correctness of what the Secretary of State for Transport said in the House when he introduced the railway White Paper:
	"Local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally." [Official Report, 15 July 2004; vol. 423, c.1548].
	It also seems to accord with the intentions of the Scottish Transport Minister, Nicol Stephen, who has said:
	"I still expect SPT to have a direct role in the management and development of rail services in the west of Scotland." [Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 June 2004; c. 9099.]
	Unfortunately, the present drafting of the Bill appears to undermine the delivery mechanism for that assurance. It is that defect that the amendments seek to address. The Bill proposes to take away PTEs' existing powers in relation to rail franchises, and clause 13 replaces them with new provisions for engaging PTEs in the franchising process. However, clause 13 does not apply in Scotland, although this is an area where the Scottish Parliament has no competence to enact equivalent or alternative provisions. The amendments therefore seek to introduce an additional clause that will give Ministers in Scotland the same discretion to involve a passenger transport executive in future railway franchises that the Secretary of State for Transport seeks in relation to English PTEs.
	There is a parallel Bill before the Scottish Parliament that could potentially amend the basis on which SPT currently operates, and result in a transfer of powers between it and Scottish Ministers. That is an undoubted complication, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that it does not remove the need for the amendments. I remind the Minister that the Scottish Parliament is not able to amend the underlying legislation governing railways. It is also worth pointing out that Holyrood's Transport (Scotland) Bill is at a less advanced stage than the Railways Bill, and its key components in relation to SPT are simply enabling. Their implementation will depend ultimately on secondary legislation whose terms and scope have yet to be defined, let alone scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament.
	The Government's acceptance of the amendments would not oblige Scottish Ministers to follow any particular future course of action, other than introducing a statutory obligation to consult. I am sure that hon. Members would in any event endorse that latter requirement. The same principles of open and accountable government should be adopted consistently throughout the United Kingdom, and should not be differentially applied in a Bill that is the responsibility of this Parliament.
	The remaining provisions of the amendments put the Bill's application to a PTE in Scotland on the same footing as in England. They would preserve a statutory framework that would enable, but not compel, Scottish Ministers to adopt the same participatory approach to a rail franchise in Scotland that would be available to the Secretary of State for Transport in England in equivalent circumstances.
	We are always dealing with hypothetical situations when legislation is in progress, but in this one, the uncertainty is compounded by the fact that two legislatures are involved. If this part of the Railways Bill is passed unamended, there is a tangible risk of unintentionally restricting the future ability of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to provide for the continuing effective delivery of integrated transport in the west of Scotland. Such a risk could arise, for example, if the current Transport (Scotland) Bill failed to gain Royal Assent or was substantially amended by the Holyrood Parliament. A risk could also arise if Scottish Ministers chose not to exercise their proposed power to initiate secondary legislation in this field, or sought to change the basis of that legislation at the outset or in future.
	My new clause and amendment seek to remove such risks by ensuring the consistency of the reserved legislative framework within which devolved railway policy will be made and delivered in Scotland. They preserve, rather than forgo, options by preventing a situation in which Scottish Ministers are statutorily debarred from involving a PTE in rail franchising. In the interests of even-handedness and of ensuring the future delivery of integrated public transport in the west of Scotland, I commend the proposals to the House. I am sure that the Minister will not fail to be moved by them and will accept them.

Greg Knight: I rise to speak to amendment No. 64, which would add to the end of clause 5(2) the phrase
	"and they shall concurrently publish in full the reasons for adopting the strategy or revised strategy."
	A duty would thereby be imposed on Scottish Ministers, in preparing or revising a strategy, to publish in full their reasons for so doing.
	We live in an age of openness and—I like to think—fairness, and everything that we do should at least be within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. The public have a right to know why decisions are made using their money in their name, and the amendment would impose a duty on Scottish Ministers to ensure that whenever they publish or change a strategy, they explain why.
	I hope that the Minister will tell me and the House that my amendment is not necessary because she expects the giving of such explanations to be best practice. If she does, I shall be delighted not to pursue the matter further.

John Thurso: Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to the Westminster Freedom of Information Act 2000 or to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002?

Greg Knight: My general point was that in the enlightened age in which we now live, one hopes, an increasing number of decisions made involving the use of public money are open to scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made the case for new clause 3 very well, but nothing that he said led me to conclude that we should support him if he decides to divide the House on it.

Anne McGuire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) for explaining the point of his new clause, which is that this Bill should make the same provision for passenger transport executives in Scotland as for those in England.
	I, too, remember fondly our days as members of Strathclyde regional council many years ago, on which we both served our political apprenticeship. If I remember correctly, he had to serve his slightly longer than I served mine, before moving on to other things.
	I accept what my hon. Friend said about the approach of Strathclyde PTE, and I should make it clear that I highlighted those points in responding to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), who have raised similar issues before. That PTE was forward-thinking and was at the forefront of providing integrated transport. As my hon. Friend alluded to, it underpinned a political agenda that recognised the need and desire in the west of Scotland for an integrated public transport system that served all the communities in the area. I should point, however, that I will be asking my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause and amendment, for reasons that I hope he will understand.
	It would be remiss of me not to put on the record the fact that yesterday, the Scottish Parliament gave its unanimous support—such unanimity is very unusual—for a Sewel motion transferring functions relating to railways from this House to Scottish Ministers. Having agreed that transfer of power to Scottish Ministers, it would not be right for this House then to second-guess what they want to do. As my hon. Friend said, they have outlined their approach to railway development in Scotland in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. They have made it clear that there will be a need for local input into the Scottish rail network, and have therefore stated categorically that the west of Scotland regional transport partnership, which will replace Strathclyde PTE, will have a role in the development, management and monitoring of the franchise in that part of Scotland. Indeed, the new regional transport partnerships will be established across Scotland.
	I am aware that concern exists that there might be a gap between enactment of the Railways Bill and of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, but we anticipate no such gap. Under the terms of clause 14 of the Railways Bill, Strathclyde PTE will continue to be a party to the ScotRail franchise. That will allow it to maintain its current role in the management of that franchise, until Scottish Ministers make an order under the Transport (Scotland) Bill—once enacted—to transfer its powers.
	The Transport (Scotland) Bill also includes provisions that allow Scottish Ministers, if they so wish, to transfer or share their own transport functions with the new regional transport partnerships that will be established across Scotland. Therefore, if they wish, Scottish Ministers can share rail functions with any RTP. So clause 13 as drafted will not statutorily debar Scottish Ministers from involving other parties in rail franchises, and in the light of that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his new clause. If he does so, it would be entirely logical for him to withdraw amendment No. 7 as well.
	The amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not necessary. We share the view that there needs to be maximum consultation, transparency and openness. Under freedom of information Acts north and south of the border, the opportunity now exists to underpin that transparency. I know that Scottish Ministers share the UK Government's concern that Scottish citizens should be properly informed about what is proposed for their railway network and why. As I said in Committee in response to a previous amendment to clause 5 that was based on a similar principle, the Scottish Executive have adopted the principles of the Cabinet Office's code of practice on policy development and public consultation. That being the case, the reasons behind policy and strategy proposals will be explained as part of observing those principles, and of good practice. There is every likelihood that before its actual publication, a strategy will have been widely available as a consultation document.
	Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies know that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are well versed in the importance of consultation in respect of policies and initiatives.In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok to withdraw the new clause.

Ian Davidson: As ever, my hon. Friend the Minister has been polite and considerate and has yielded no ground. Goodness me—some things have not changed since our days in Strathclyde! I had hoped that she might have mellowed, but apparently she has not.
	I understand that I have a decision to make about pressing the new clause to a vote. It is maybes aye, and maybes no—but, on balance, I think that I will not do so.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Rail Efficiency Report

'The Secretary of State shall publish annually a Rail Efficiency Report containing his assessment of the performance and cost effectiveness of Network Rail during the twelve months previous and in particular he shall provide comparisons of such performance data with other comparable rail companies operating partly or wholly in the European Union.'
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 6—Redundant Assets Register—
	   'The Secretary of State shall every three years lay before each House of Parliament a register of all assets including land and property owned by Network Rail which are redundant to railway use or which have not been used for railway purposes during the preceding eighteen months together with a statement of intent regarding their future use or disposal.'.

Greg Knight: The Standing Committee debates on this Bill were very constructive, and genuine concerns were raised by hon. Members from all parties. It is in that spirit of constructive debate that I wish to speak to these new clauses.
	The new clauses are reasonable, moderate and fair, and I hope that the Minister of State will respond positively to them. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual rail efficiency report containing his assessment of the performance and cost effectiveness of Network Rail in the previous 12 months. In particular, it would encourage him to provide comparative data in respect of those rail companies operating wholly or in part in the EU.
	The suggestion is not impractical. The Minister will know—as will many Conservative Members—that the EU position on railway service reform has three stages. Perhaps predictably, they are called the first railway package, the second railway package and the third railway package.
	The second railway package aims to create a legally and technically integrated European railway, and was adopted by the EU in April 2004. The third railway package sets out proposals to open up international passenger services to competition inside the EU by the year 2010. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we should, wherever possible, compare the performance of the UK rail network with that of our European counterparts.
	When hon. Members raise concerns about our railway system, they often say how wonderful the railways in France are. I have never had the delight of travelling on a French train, but I should be delighted to be able to scrutinise our performance in this country to see how it compares with what happens in France. In that way, I could determine whether the claims made about the French railway are accurate or apocryphal. An annual rail efficiency report would therefore do a service to us all, and I hope that the Minister can respond positively to the suggestion.
	New clause 6 would require a review of assets to take place every three years, covering all land and other property owned by Network Rail that is redundant to railway use or which has not been used for railway purposes in the preceding 18 months. The review would also contain a statement of intent regarding the future use or disposal of such assets.
	On 5 March 2002, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), responded to a question by stating that the Strategic Rail Authority had not carried out any evaluation of rail assets at that stage. In the past, there has been some criticism of the lack of information in respect of assets held by the rail network.
	I am not necessarily critical of the fact that Network Rail might have some assets that are not currently in use and which are in a temporary limbo. It is justifiable for businesses to have certain assets that they may not use at present but which they may want to use in the future. It would be very short-sighted to force a company such as Network Rail to dispose of assets when it may have tentative plans to bring those assets into use in the future. New clause 6 would not do that: instead, it would require the Secretary of State to produce a list of the relevant assets, and a statement of intent that would tell us what would become of them.
	I know that many assets have been realised over recent years, but many redundant assets remaining in Network Rail's asset base could be brought back into use or disposed of. I shall give the Minister an example. The main rail line from St. Pancras to the north has quite a lengthy stretch through Leicestershire that used to have four tracks. As a former regular user of that line, I was aware that two of those tracks were used exclusively for freight and two for passenger services. The reason for having four lines in that stretch was to allow the faster passenger trains to overtake the slower-moving goods vehicles.
	The collapse in rail freight a couple of decades ago caused someone in authority to decide that that stretch of line should not have four tracks. As a result, two of the tracks were taken up, but the track bed remains, and the people who manage these assets should be forced to decide whether they will be brought back into use in the future, or whether they should be realised and sold. The benefit of selling an asset that is for the moment dormant is that money is released for other railway purposes.
	Both new clauses are reasonable, and the history of our railway network shows why there are surplus assets in many parts of the country that Network Rail could sell. The Stockton to Darlington railway opened in 1821, thus beginning 100 years in which the private sector raised capital for investment. It was a period of strong competition, which caused the original railway companies to lay tracks and purchase assets around the country. Some of those assets are still retained in railway ownership.
	We are in a different ball game now. It is right that Network Rail should be forced to justify the assets that it still has, and to indicate whether they will be brought back into use or whether they could be made available for sale.

John Thurso: Both new clauses would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish information or reports. However, they are relatively narrow, in that they concentrate on the financial side of his responsibilities.
	New clause 5 deals with rail efficiency and the performance of Network Rail. In passing, a minor criticism is that it does not go far enough. By concentrating on Network Rail, it leaves out a large part of the rail system—the train operating companies, the ROSCOs—rolling stock companies—and so on.
	New clause 6 relates specifically to a register of assets. I have no difficulty in supporting the new clauses, because they point the way to one of the deficiencies in the Bill. As the Minister knows, I support the Bill and the principle that the SRA should be abolished, because it is right for the Government to take strategic responsibility for the railway. However, under the present arrangements, the SRA is under a duty to report on the matters mentioned in the new clauses and on a range of other matters. That report is made available to us. In the transfer of duties from the SRA to the Secretary of State, the duty to report has been lost, and the new clauses are intended to restore it.
	I am sorry that new clause 4, which I tabled, did not find favour with Mr. Speaker, because it would have fully addressed the requirement to publish the strategy and to report on progress on it. That may be something for the other place to consider.
	New clauses 5 and 6 are requests for the publication of information and my colleagues and I are happy to support them. However, I wish that they contained an additional requirement to publish the strategy. The travelling public, as I said on Second Reading, need to see where they are going in the long term and what mileposts should be met along the route.

Mark Francois: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and new clause 5, which calls for the publication of annual rail efficiency report by Network Rail. I should probably declare a small personal interest at this point, inasmuch as the chairman of Network Rail, Mr. Ian McAllister, is a constituent of mine, and I have written to him on the issue that I wish to raise this afternoon.
	I wish to back the suggestion for a specific efficiency report, because a good number of my constituents are commuters. Many of them work in the City of London and travel into Liverpool Street station each morning. The efficiency of Network Rail is of considerable importance to them, not least because there are now important capacity issues on the Liverpool Street line. Network Rail, and Railtrack before it, has undertaken work to upgrade the line, both in terms of signalling improvements and initiatives such as lengthening some of the platforms at stations to facilitate the operation of 12-carriage trains, which are obviously more efficient. We also now have the combined franchise, operated by the 'one' group, which has led to some improvement in the co-ordination of services in and out of Liverpool Street, although the new timetable is taking a while to settle down.
	Important physical constraints must be faced, however, including a narrow entrance, or neck, in and out of Liverpool Street station, so that it is comparatively difficult to run many more trains in and out, especially during the morning and evening peaks. Incidentally, if we are to see much expansion in house building in the Thames gateway area, that restriction will be an increasing problem, because at least some of the people who will live in those houses will want to commute into London. Ministers will have to be conscious of that.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential for increased capacity at Fenchurch Street station—used by the constituents of other south Essex Members, if not by his, to come into central London— is also limited. I therefore recognise the issues that he raises about the potentially large increase in housing capacity in the Thames gateway region.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I commuted into Fenchurch Street for some eight years, so I am familiar with that station. It, too, has a very narrow neck. It will be therefore a serious challenge to bring in additional trains from the east of London, because only so many trains will physically fit into so much space. Ministers will have to consider that situation seriously, as will a future Conservative Government.
	Speed restrictions still apply in some areas of the track at times, and further upgrade work—especially on some of the bridges, which can be particular choke points in terms of speed restrictions—would probably prove cost-effective in helping the trains to run more smoothly and efficiently. In addition, if we are to have an annual report specifically about efficiency, one area that it should cover is time lost to engineering works, especially when scheduled engineering works take place over a weekend but overrun into Monday morning. The track is opened again later than scheduled, so services during the Monday morning peak are disrupted. I have experienced that myself on several occasions in the past year when travelling to the House.
	In a letter I received from Network Rail in November, the company admitted that six such overruns had occurred in the previous nine months, including at least one occasion when the line could not be released until past 9 am, with predictable consequences for commuters struggling into work. Greater effort may be required from Network Rail to try to prevent what should be an avoidable problem that is largely under its own control. They are, after all, the company's works. If Network Rail were required to report on the matter specifically every year, in a way easily accessible to commuters, it might help to focus minds on the problem.
	In fairness, I should say that Network Rail has already undertaken some initiatives to try to address the situation, so it is not as if it has ignored the difficulty or pretended that it does not exist. Nevertheless, the problem persists on occasions and greater effort needs to be applied to try to eradicate it. I am grateful for the opportunity to put those points on the record and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the issues, which are of great interest to my constituents.

Tony McNulty: I shall start with a few points arising from the contribution by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). We fully accept and understand, as we have said repeatedly, that the railways—and other transport dimensions—need the infrastructure commensurate with the developments that are coming in the gateway, in north Kent and south Essex. Clearly, that will have a knock-on effect for assorted London terminals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), such as Liverpool Street, which will have to be factored into the mix.
	From the Kent perspective—I know that the hon. Member for Rayleigh could care less about that as an Essex Member—the channel tunnel rail link and other changes to the integrated Kent franchise will assist matters and, although they are meeting some resistance, they will redress the balance somewhat in terms of the numbers of trains going into Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street and St. Pancras. The changes are causing some disquiet among Kent commuters who have taken trains into Cannon Street for ever, and we will have to take into account how they will be affected.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned overruns. Engineering works need to be signed off only when it is safe to do so, and sometimes that means a couple of hours overrun with all the knock-on effects on the network. It is a fine balance, and Network Rail is getting better at it, but I cannot say that it will never happen again. In some cases, the safety considerations outweigh whatever delay and disruption may occur at that crucial time for commuters on a Monday morning. Safety must remain the key focal point.

Mark Field: In view of the cost implications of finding land in central London at Fenchurch Street station or Cannon Street, does the Minister think that we should have hubs in Finsbury Park, Stratford—which, in a sense, is already a hub—or the other side of London Bridge station, to provide larger capacity? Should we have new or enlarged stations outside the central zone stations that already exist? If so, is that the sort of initiative that should be replicated in other large cities, where the sheer cost and inconvenience of developing existing stations in the centre means that it is wise to consider areas in the suburbs for development?

Tony McNulty: I think the answer is yes to some extent, but clearly it is dependent, whether it is in central London or elsewhere, on the existing hub and network reality as well as the potential for developing things further. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know that we are seeking to overcome precisely such difficulties at Birmingham New Street. There will be a reconfiguration, once the channel tunnel rail link is up and running by 2009, in terms of the balance between the King's Cross/St. Pancras complex and a number of the channel tunnel rail link stations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As and when Thameslink 2000 is taken forward—perhaps the 2000 should be in inverted commas; I do not know—much of the real work there that will have a profound impact particularly on the southern commuter lines will be around the viaducts and bridges of Borough and the throat into London Bridge, and that will have serious ramifications in terms of enhancing capacity and efficiency.
	So a number of things can be done. Finsbury Park, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a mini-hub already and by the end of this work we shall have a very substantial hub at Stratford, with 10 or 11 lines going into it. If we are moving on to developments similar to those at Stratford, if there is an opportunity to make them transport hubs if they are close to but not in the centre—almost suburban but not quite; the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—we should avail ourselves of that opportunity.
	That leads me neatly to new clause 6 rather than new clause 5, and I will deal with both in detail after I have given way.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. May I say for the record that even though I am an Essex MP I have considerable sympathy with Kent commuters because they face many of the problems as my constituents do commuting in from Essex? But on infrastructure, the Minister may be aware that the East of England regional assembly voted for increased housing targets in November 2004 and then effectively abrogated that plan in December 2004, specifically because of a lack of transport infrastructure to accommodate house building on that scale. To be fair to the Minister, he has shown some awareness of the problem, but we cannot stress enough how important addressing this is going to be.

Tony McNulty: To be honest, the assembly did not abrogate it; it simply looked again and did not go quite as far as it had earlier in terms of numbers. That is slightly different from a complete abrogation of what it passed in the first instance. But without getting too far off the point and the matters before us, there is a £200 million pot for the community infrastructure fund to take up smaller projects and schemes throughout the gateway and the other growth areas that we are progressing, and at the last count the currently committed spending just in the gateway in terms of transport infrastructure has been the best part of some £900 million—close to £1 billion; we have said time and again that of course the two must go together.
	The point that I was going to end on in speaking about stations was that while I have sympathy with new clauses 5 and 6, for reasons that I shall explain I believe that both are unnecessary. But this point was raised at Second Reading and I do have some sympathy with it and am trying to pursue this more readily with Network Rail. It is not about its asset base; principally the land that it holds is operational rail land and not much more, and I shall return to that in detail. But there is an issue about what Network Rail can do in a proactive fashion around assorted termini to improve, and maybe enhance, passenger flow and so on by working far more readily than it has done thus far with the private sector, with the development industry, not only across the obvious London termini where there is clearly a commercial attraction but in other towns and cities too, and on a smaller level, to capture some sort of development gain. Network Rail has not been very good at that; I have told a constituent of the hon. Member for Rayleigh that to his face, so I am not talking out of turn. There is much more that can be done to turn our key termini far more readily into the transport interchanges and flourishing commercial ventures that they could be, perhaps far more so than they are now. I am exploring that and trying to move on with Network rail in that regard.
	If I may, I shall "return to the clauses" but I am not sure that I had got to them yet. New clause 5 calls upon the Secretary of State to publish an annual assessment of the performance and efficiency of Network Rail in the form of a "rail efficiency report", with what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire suggested about EU comparative data. The independent Office of Rail Regulation already carries out such an annual assessment, in the form of—I fully accept that it does not trip off the tongue as lightly as "rail efficiency report"—its annual statement on Network Rail's stewardship of the national rail network. It is a different label but it does capture, I would suggest, what the right hon. Gentleman is after. Its first such report covered primarily the year April 2003 to March 2004 and was published in November 2004. A rail efficiency report, I would contend, would therefore create unnecessary duplication.
	The key function of the ORR is to monitor the performance and cost-effectiveness of Network Rail. The "Statement on Network Rail's Stewardship of the National Rail Network 2003–04" is an evaluation of the extent to which Network Rail met the stewardship requirements of its network licence, regulatory targets, and those targets identified in the business plan for April 2003 to March 2004. It covers all aspects of Network Rail's stewardship—expenditure, maintenance, renewal, enhancement, asset knowledge, operations, performance and monitoring. It consolidates the analysis carried out during the year by the regulator and allows Network Rail's customers, funders, members, users and other stakeholders to see how efficiently Network Rail is managing this important national asset. The Secretary of State will publish the ORR's second annual statement in autumn 2005.
	I fully understand that in some ways that does not quite capture the reasons for the overruns and the reasons for the lack of efficiency, but they will be and are captured in other ways. As Minister with responsibility for rail, I have a meeting once a month with all the parties concerned, including Network Rail, just on performance of the various aspects of the rail industry, when those matters are explored further, but I do think this document does largely capture what the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests should be in such an efficiency report. It sets out the regulatory calendar for the scrutiny of Network Rail's business plan and delivery against it. It includes an annual return, regulatory accounts and a quarterly statement, and the statement is presented as a balanced scorecard of high-level indicators that measure the extent to which Network Rail is achieving improvements and targets in a number of key areas of performance: safety, train performance, asset performance, activity volumes, finance, customer satisfaction and supplier satisfaction.
	The views of consultees are sought on whether these indicators are the right ones, whether they need to be expanded to reflect Network Rail's broader responsibilities following the rail review, and the frequency with which they should be published. We are consulting on that now as we speak. Data comparing Network Rail's performance with that of rail companies operating partly or wholly within the European Union are currently not available. Whilst the European Commission would like to enhance benchmarking data, there is no prospect of any meaningful data becoming available for the foreseeable future, but I do take the right hon. Gentleman's point and we shall continue to look to the ORR, in carrying out its periodic reviews, to conduct research looking at benchmarking performance with other selected comparators that are appropriate comparators with other EU countries, to inform its assessment of Network Rail's performance and efficient gains. I understand that this was the approach taken in the last periodic review.
	I think that overall, given especially the shift of emphasis in terms of ORR and what it can do should the Bill receive Royal Assent, that would be a more effective approach than simply having an efficiency report by the Secretary of State. I would say too that many of the things we are doing outside the Bill would lend themselves more readily to trying to capture that performance assessment at the local level. We are requiring Network Rail to work much more closely with train operating companies on a franchise-by-franchise, region-by-region basis. Invariably, that is through a key integrated control centre, where Network Rail, the train operating company, and the rolling stock company if necessary, all sit side by side to manage that part of the network more efficiently.
	When the centres are up and running more readily—I think that the next to go on stream will be the East Anglian one based at Liverpool Street—proper communication and information flow will give us more realistic reasons why overruns occur. The hon. Member for Rayleigh and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire suggested that all such information is available and I would not demur from that.
	Although I understand the impetus behind new clause 6, which would provide for a triennial register of Network Rail's land and property assets that were redundant or had not been used for eighteen months, I am not sure that I would go along with it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the background to the management and disposal of railway land. At the time of privatisation, the ownership of operational railway land was transferred to Railtrack, and subsequently Network Rail. The British Railways Board retained the non-operational land and buildings. That estate was transferred to BRB (Residuary) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority, upon the SRA's establishment in 2001.
	As part of the periodic review process, Network Rail is encouraged to maximise its income from all sources, including the redevelopment of its land and property, by  exploiting appropriate disposal opportunities. However, a balance is needed to ensure that future rail development opportunities are not sacrificed for short-term financial gain through disposals. As everyone knows, Network Rail is regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation, and it must seek the ORR's consent before making arrangements for land disposal.
	I do not know about the specific piece of two-track line in Leicestershire that used to be the four-track line to which the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred. If there is any possible reason why that might be four-tracked again in the future, I would rather that is was left as it is and protected than for anything else to happen to it. That does not mean that something is imminent for that specific stretch. I am simply saying that it is sometimes appropriate for land to be held for more than 18 months—the time cited in new clause 6—pending future development.

Michael Spicer: Of course I take the point that land which is redundant today might not be redundant tomorrow. Just before privatisation, a lot of land became redundant because of the inefficiency of the railways under nationalisation. Privatisation led to more demand, and although we now want the duelling of track throughout my constituency, we did not want that under nationalisation. However, surely that does not negate the value of reporting to the House about what is thought to be operationally viable in the future or redundant in the way envisaged by new clause 6. Why not keep the House of Commons informed?

Tony McNulty: I am not saying that the House of Commons or anyone else should not be informed, but the ORR and Network Rail have a relationship in the first instance through which they can consider what happens to land. Let me go into a bit more detail, although we can return to the matter if hon. Members wish.
	Network Rail's forecast income from property was closely scrutinised by the ORR as part of the access charges review in 2003, precisely to ensure that Network Rail was maximising the revenue generating potential of its property portfolio. In the conclusions of the review, the ORR determined that Network Rail should earn £1.2 billion in property income over the five years from 1 April 2004, which was £50 million more than Network Rail had forecast. That is clearly a challenging target, but assets, buildings and other portfolios do not stand idle while people decide what to do with them, because they form part of Network Rail's overall budget. As has been said, it is clearly best for Network Rail to determine how best to manage its property portfolio from day to day to optimise revenue earned from that without compromising its core business of operating, maintaining and renewing the rail network. It would not be terribly appropriate for civil servants or politicians to get involved in that process.
	The ORR thus already regulates and monitors the disposal of Network Rail's land and property. Network Rail's network licence includes a condition that was imposed by the rail regulator to prevent the disposal of land by Network Rail unless the ORR consents to such disposal. When reaching a decision, the ORR will consult various railway industry stakeholders for their views. Consent is likely to be refused if the land could be important to the continuing operation and further development of the network, as I said.
	The purpose of the licence condition is to ensure that parts of the Network Rail property portfolio that might be required for the future development of the railway are retained for that purpose. If consent is given, which may be for an individual case or in accordance with a general consent covering specified categories of land, the decision on whether, when and how land should be disposed is a commercial one for Network Rail.
	A balance must be struck between what the ORR reports about the previous disposal and utilisation of assets and the real commercial considerations of the ORR and Network Rail. Many of the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire are covered in one way or another by the relationship between the ORR and Network Rail. However, the arbitrary time frames in new clause 6 are not appropriate. When the post-SRA world settles down, I am more than happy to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and anyone else who needs to know are aware of Network Rail's assets register, land holdings and the targets for the next periodic review. In that context, I would suggest that most of the concerns addressed by new clauses 5 and 6 either have been covered already, or are well on their way to being covered. Although I accept the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's points, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

Greg Knight: We have had a worthwhile debate. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) criticised what he described as the narrow drafting of the new clauses, but accepted the thrust of the argument behind them. I suppose it was a case of praising with faint damns, but I thank him for his qualified support.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) drew the House's attention to specific problems occurring in his part of the country, and I am sure that the Minister will reflect on his comments. My hon. Friend made a telling point when he said that bridges on some parts of the network are choke points. They are indeed a big problem on a large part of the network, and in many cases they prevent the network from being opened up to increased freight business. If redundant assets could be sold to fund bridge replacement work, both passengers and freight customers would benefit.
	We take the Minister's point about retaining—where appropriate—currently unused railway land if there are plans to bring it into use in future. We accept that, of course, but it was not part of the aim we sought to achieve through new clause 6. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman accepts that Network Rail could do more and be more proactive about enhancing passenger flow. We give him two cheers for clearly acknowledging that more could be done. I hope that as long as he is a Transport Minister, he will stay on the case and ensure that Network Rail is indeed more active in improving the quality of travel for passengers. In the light of his response and of the fact that the Minister acknowledges that there is a problem, I shall not pursue new clause 6 any further.
	I was less convinced by the Minister's response to new clause 5. There is a case for saying that as long as the railways remain under the wing of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State should be answerable to the House and should have a duty to publish a rail efficiency report—if only to focus his mind and ours on the fact that more could and should be done to improve rail efficiency. Although I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response, I still have some doubts regarding new clause 5, and when in doubt one should always take the mood of the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 222.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Railway Strategy for Wales

'(1)   The National Assembly for Wales may prepare a strategy for carrying out its functions in relation to railways and railway services.
	(2)   The National Assembly for Wales may from time to time revise that strategy.
	(3)   Where the National Assembly for Wales prepares or revises such a strategy, it must publish the strategy or revised strategy in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it.
	(4)   The reference in subsection (1) to the functions of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to railways and railway services includes, in particular, its functions under Part 1 of the 1993 Act and its functions under this Act.'.—[Mr. Llwyd]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
	No. 33, in clause 10, page 9, line 14, leave out "Wales-only", insert "any Welsh".
	No. 36, in clause 12, page 11, line 13, at end insert—
	'(da)   the National Assembly for Wales.'
	No. 38, in clause 22, page 21, line 2, at end insert—
	'(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to services all of which are Wales-only services, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.
	No. 39, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
	'(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to services all of which are Wales-only services, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.
	No. 41, in clause 25, page 24, line 47, at end insert—
	"(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to one or more services each of which is—
	(i)   a Wales-only service, or
	(ii)   a cross-border service in relation to which so much of the funding as is provided by a railway funding authority is funding provided by the National Assembly for Wales,
	   means the National Assembly for Wales; and".
	No. 48, in clause 30, page 31, line 36, at end insert—
	"(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to a station or part of a station that is wholly in Wales, means the National Assembly for Wales; and".
	No. 49, in page 31, line 38, leave out 'and Wales'.
	No. 50, in clause 31, page 32, line 45, at end insert—
	'"(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to a station or part of a station that is wholly in Wales, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.
	No. 51, in page 32, line 47, leave out 'and Wales'.
	No. 59, in schedule 9, page 114, line 19, at end insert—
	'"(ba)   where the relevant assets by reference to which the bye-laws are or were made are all Welsh assets, the National Assembly for Wales;
	(bb)   where some but not all of those assets are Welsh assets or include assets that are used partly in Wales and partly elsewhere, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales; and".'.
	No. 57, in page 114, line 37, at end insert—
	'(4)   In sub-paragraph (1) "Welsh asset" means—
	(a)   an asset that is permanently situated in Wales; or
	(b)   an asset that is used only in Wales.
	(5)   In the case of bye-laws in relation to which both the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales are the appropriate national authority—
	(a)   anything that must be done under this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws by the appropriate national authority must be done by them both, acting jointly;
	(b)   anything that may be done under this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws by the appropriate national authority may be done only by them both acting jointly; and
	(c)   any requirement of this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws to send something to the appropriate national authority is complied with only if that thing is sent both to the Secretary of State and to the National Assembly for Wales.'.

Elfyn Llwyd: I make no apology for spending a little time on new clause 9 and the amendments grouped with it. They were requested by the National Assembly for Wales, not because Plaid Cymru Members asked for them, but because the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly, chaired by Christine Gwyther AM, a former new Labour Minister of the Assembly, was concerned that they should be included in the Bill. To make matters slightly worse, and to add insult to injury, the Assembly had requested overall control of the railways in a measure in the Queen's Speech, but that proposal was dispatched with very little regard.
	Before I speak to the amendments, I wish to refer to a letter written by Christine Gwyther on 14 January 2005 to the Chairmen of the Railways Bill Committee. She says that her committee was
	"very conscious that the timetable set for the Parliamentary process is very tight and that this has put your Committee under enormous pressure in its scrutiny of the Bill. While this is not a matter for you, my Members were disappointed that the timing of this most important piece of legislation allowed so little time for wider consideration, or for the National Assembly to consider the Bill in much detail . . . The Committee's overall view was that the Bill marked a major stage in the development of the Railways in Britain and provided an opportunity for a comprehensive transfer of powers over Welsh railways to the National Assembly. Members noted the substantial range of powers that it conferred on the Scottish Executive and were disappointed that the Secretary of State for Transport was retaining many of these powers in relation to Wales. A particular concern was the failure of the Bill to transfer to the National Assembly control over the infrastructure in Wales. Clearly, it is too late to make fundamental changes to the Bill, but there are two specific points which the Committee felt could easily be changed:
	Members were concerned about the lack of control Wales would have over closures where the Assembly is not funding the rail service. Clauses 22 to 31 refer to National Authorities being notified of any closure proposal and then carrying out a consultation on this. However, while the Scottish Executive is the National Authority in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Transport would undertake this function in Wales. Members cannot see any reason why the National Assembly should not have this responsibility in Wales and urged you to amend the Bill accordingly.
	Finally, the letter states:
	"One other anomaly relates to the confirming of bye-laws. The National Assembly already has extensive powers in this regard and the Committee cannot see why it should not have the same powers as Scottish Ministers in relation to schedule 9. This could be achieved by amending Paragraph 1 of that schedule to include the National Assembly for Wales as the appropriate national authority for bye-laws relating to Welsh assets, with similar provisions to those relating to Scotland in relation to cross-border bye-laws."
	I have quoted extensively from that letter since I believe that it is important not only in itself, but with regard to further issues. We are always told about the successful partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and this place and that the way in which legislation works, as and when it is necessary, is that it is called for by the Welsh Assembly and put in train by Ministers in this place. This is a classic example where the devolution process breaks down utterly. For whatever reason, the pleas of the Assembly, the cross-party committee and the letter penned by the ex-new Labour Minister who chairs that committee have been ignored utterly by the Committee in this place. Its members had the representations in good time to table amendments. Indeed, amendments were tabled, and they are now being discussed.
	I have dealt with those points at length because I hope that somebody more kindly disposed to the devolution process in the other place will take them up. They are important if we are indeed going to refer to any form of partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and this place pro tem in any event.
	I shall not read out the new clause, as other Members have important amendments to speak to later, but I wish to make a brief point. The new clause emulates the provision for Scotland and falls very well into the rest of the Bill, which gives the Assembly power to spend money on rail services. It calls for a railway strategy for Wales, which would guide decisions about where to put money and what money to put in. The Transport (Wales) Bill requires the Assembly to draw up a Wales transport strategy. A railway strategy could be a part of that, but in our view, it needs to be mentioned in the Railways Bill, as it needs to be an input into the Secretary of State's decisions about railways, particularly if the other amendments that we have tabled to strengthen the Assembly's powers are rejected.
	Amendment No. 33 deletes "Wales-only" and inserts "any Welsh". The purport of that is to give the Assembly a consultation role in any proposed franchise agreements which include Welsh stations, for example Paddington to Swansea, rather than to confine it to services run entirely within Wales.
	Amendment No. 36 inserts a new subsection and adds the Assembly to the list of bodies that can own railway assets following the end of a franchise. One of the issues strongly raised by Miss Gwyther was the need for the infrastructure to be in the hands of the National Assembly.
	Amendment No. 38 adds the Assembly to the national authorities—currently just the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State— which must
	"consider whether the closure in question should be allowed."
	That comes from subsection (6). This is a proposal from a service operator to discontinue a service that the franchise does not require the operator to run and which, if it is decided to delete it, should not be allowed to run. Therefore this is to secure the provision of services.
	Amendment No. 39 adds the Assembly to the definition of national authorities that must consider proposals coming from funding authorities, rather than service operators, to discontinue a service that may not be required under the franchise agreement.
	Amendment No. 41 adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must consider proposals coming from service operators to discontinue excluded services, which are basically services other than ordinary passenger services. The wording emulates that which applies to Scotland.
	Amendment No. 48 again adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must keep a station in operation if the Office of Rail Regulation turns down under subsection (7) a proposal from a funding authority to stop funding it.
	Amendment No. 59 gives the Assembly power to make railway byelaws. Miss Gwyther specifically asked for this in her letter to the Committee. I ask the Minister to address these points, as I am sure he will. I felt it necessary to put them on the record because the last thing we want is for the National Assembly to feel that it has been entirely excluded from the process. I realise that the request came rather late to the Committee. Nevertheless, the request was plainly made well before today.
	Amendment No. 50 adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must keep a "secured" station in operation if the ORR turns down under subsection (7) a proposal from a funding authority to cease funding it.
	Amendment No. 57 backs up the previous amendment in the same way and emulates what is happening in Scottish byelaws, defining which byelaws can be made.
	My hon. Friends and I have tabled this bank of amendments. Although they were mainly drafted by Members of our party, the purport of them came from every political party in the National Assembly, as represented on the Committee chaired by Miss Gwyther. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to each and every one of them. I am not prejudging the issue, but if the Minister is unable so to do, I hope that someone in the other place more generously disposed to the devolution process might deal with them. The matters are important. I am not simply making political points; I am trying to make the point that we need this to be done for the railways infrastructure in Wales to be properly controlled.

Jeremy Corbyn: What is the boundary for rail infrastructure in Wales, because the link lines between north and south Wales partly run through England? In the hon. Gentleman's view, should those lines be included in the Wales franchise?

Elfyn Llwyd: The Welsh Assembly should be properly consulted with regard to the important rail service from Swansea to Paddington. I am not saying that it should control lines outside the Welsh border, but it should be consulted properly and its views should be taken into account, which is not the current situation with regard to the cross-party committee. I hope that I have made the point, and I ask the Minister to respond in as much detail as possible.

John Thurso: Before I address the new clause and amendments introduced by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I shall refer to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) in Committee. I am sure that there was a good reason why the hon. Member for Ceredigion was not in Committee when we reached those amendments. I am sorry that they were not moved, because I sympathise with them.

Elfyn Llwyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) experienced a flooding incident in his flat.

Tony McNulty: For seven sittings?

Elfyn Llwyd: For some unearthly reason, the message did not get through to the Clerk or the Chair, and I apologise for that on his behalf.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. If one's flat is flooded, it is a serious occurrence, which explains why the hon. Member for Ceredigion was not present on that morning. I sympathise with the amendments, and if I had known about the situation, I might have put my name to them.
	New clause 9 and the amendments relate to the asymmetry of the devolution settlement in this country. In Scotland, we enjoy a Parliament with full powers, whereas the Welsh Assembly has powers over secondary legislation only. It is fairly well known that my party would like Wales to be blessed with a Parliament as opposed to an Assembly.
	In broad terms, I can see no reason why Wales should not be permitted the same devolutionary responsibilities as Scotland. Some difficulties exist, and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has made the point that whereas the Scottish railway system is almost wholly in Scotland and has two well-defined routes in the west and the east, the situation is more complex in Wales, because the railways dip in and out of England. That difficulty in formulating strategy is not apparent in Scotland.
	On the principle of the matter, the Welsh Assembly should be permitted as much say in the railways as possible. I have said this before, and I am sure that I will say it again: the correct principle for devolution is that what can be devolved should be devolved. Assembly Members—in particular, Jenny Randerson, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on such matters—have contacted me to make the point that all parties would like to see a greater role for the Welsh Assembly. I hope that the Government will listen with some sympathy to the points that have been made and consider—if not today, in another place—how they might fulfil the legitimate aspirations for devolution expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that these are serious matters. Nor do I doubt that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who sat—or rather, did not sit—for Plaid Cymru on the Committee, had difficulties on the day that the amendments should have been debated. These amendments should therefore be treated with all due consideration and regard, and in detail, and I shall try to respond to them in that context. However, the record should show that the inundation took place on only one sitting day. The hon. Member for Ceredigion popped along to see us for about half an hour on the first day that we sat and was not there for the remaining seven sittings. That is a matter of regret, not least for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who, as he said, would have wanted to discuss the amendments had that been possible. I understand about the flood, but to turn up for only one sitting, albeit with an excuse for one of the others, is not a terribly good batting average for any member of any Committee.
	New clause 9 seeks a power for the National Assembly for Wales to prepare and publish railway strategies for Wales that is equivalent to Scottish Ministers' powers in relation to Scottish railway strategies in clause 5. I contend that that is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has overall policy responsibility for the strategic direction of the railway in England and Wales. Scottish Ministers have the power to prepare a railway strategy because they have equivalent franchising and network functions in Scotland to those of the Secretary of State in England and Wales. I understand that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) addresses those points in later amendments, which I shall deal with in due course.
	Although the Bill does not place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish railway strategies in the same way that section 206 of the Transport Act 2000 makes it a duty of the Strategic Rail Authority to publish such strategies, he will have an overall strategy for the railway. From time to time, the Department for Transport will undoubtedly publish documents that set out his objectives in this regard. The Department will certainly consult the National Assembly for Wales as a matter of course when preparing any strategies that affect Wales.
	The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult the Assembly before exercising certain key functions: for example, before he gives general guidance to the Office of Rail Regulation as to that body's exercise of its functions, which is in clause 3; before he publishes a statement of policy on franchising, which is in schedule 1; and before issuing invitations to tender for franchises that provide or include Welsh services or entering into such a franchise without a tendering process, which is in clause 10. The Bill already has elements that take full account of the need to consult the Assembly.
	Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Assembly from preparing and publishing its own strategy for the Welsh railway. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will know, it already funds a significant programme of rail investment as part of its policy of developing an integrated transport system, which is set out in its document, "The Transport Framework for Wales". Clause 3 anticipates the Assembly's strategies. It provides that the Office of Rail Regulation must have regard to any Assembly's railway policies or strategies notified to it when exercising its functions under part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill. Subsection (8) says that the ORR must
	"have regard to any notified strategies and policies of the National Assembly for Wales, so far as they relate to Welsh services or to any other matter in or as regards Wales that concerns railways or railway services".
	The provision therefore already exists. There is a logic and integrity to the Bill's provisions for Wales and the National Assembly. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to go much further and I shall deal with the amendments that try to achieve that shortly. However, the measure's logic reflects the asymmetrical democracy that exists through devolution in this country. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, it reflects the relative weight, power and functions of the respective institutions.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am genuinely grateful for the detail that the Minister is providing in his response. However, the debate echoes what was said when the Strategic Rail Authority was set up. People in Wales felt that there should have been either a separate Welsh branch of the SRA or a strong Welsh representation. However, I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for going into such detail.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. He will understand that I did not follow the debate on establishing the SRA with the same attention to detail and interest with which I am following the current debate, for obvious reasons. However, in the past year or two, the SRA has moved more readily towards a regional focus and taken account of the regional sensitivities that exist throughout the United Kingdom. We do not want to lose that in replicating the SRA functions that the Department for Transport rail unit, rather than the SRA, will cover.
	Amendment No. 33 would give the Assembly a great deal more power—more power than Scottish Ministers would enjoy. It would make the National Assembly and the Secretary of State joint signatories to all the English franchises that cross the border into Wales. The Scottish Ministers will not have that power for the east and west coast franchises—the rough parallel that one could draw.
	The core of the Bill as it relates to Wales is the Assembly's role in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. That is the only franchise that currently provides what the Bill defines as "Wales-only services". As drafted, the Bill gives the Assembly the right to be a joint signatory with the Secretary of State to the Arriva Trains Wales franchise, thus recognising the importance of that franchise to Wales.
	Clause 10(1) deals with the other important relationship between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly: on consultation about all franchises that serve Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made that point earlier. The Assembly will have the clear right to be consulted about franchises that provide Welsh services. That will give the Assembly the opportunity to say what it would like to achieve for Wales from them. It will also be able to use the broad powers in clause 10 to provide financial assistance to secure additional services from the relevant franchisee.
	If he considered it appropriate, the Secretary of State could invite the National Assembly to be a joint signatory to a franchise that provided Welsh services—for example, if the Assembly wished to secure significant services via the franchise. Clause 10(3) enables him to do that. However, it is right that that remains a flexible option. I do not therefore believe that amendment No. 33 is necessary.
	Amendment No. 36 would enable the Assembly to be the recipient of franchise assets at the end of a franchise agreement. At the end of the term of a franchise in England and Wales, it will be the Secretary of State's responsibility to make a transfer scheme in relation to the franchise assets. In Scotland, that role will be performed by Scottish Ministers.
	Clause 12 sets out the parties to whom the franchise assets may transfer. They include the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or a company that is either wholly or jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, and a franchise company. The Secretary of State must consult every party to which he proposes to transfer assets before making the transfer scheme.
	The primary intention of the clause is to transfer designated franchise assets at the end of the franchise to the new operator of train services. In the vast majority of cases, the new operator will be the new private sector franchisee. A transfer scheme will be made to transfer the franchise assets from the old franchise company to the new one. The out-going company will be paid by the in-coming train operator for the franchise assets in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement.
	In a small number of cases, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or companies owned by them will operate a train service as the operator of last resort on a temporary basis. Assets such as ticket machines and office equipment will therefore have to be transferred to those bodies to allow them to provide the service. There is no provision in the Bill for the National Assembly for Wales to operate services as the operator of last resort. The Assembly is therefore not included in the list of bodies that can receive a transfer of franchise assets.
	That does not prevent the Assembly from owning certain assets in relation to a franchise. For example, if the Assembly were to invest in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise and there were certain assets that it considered should remain the responsibility of the Assembly, those assets need not be designated as franchise assets. The franchise agreement could clearly state that those assets were not among the franchise assets and were to be returned to the Assembly, which would then decide how they were to be used. On replacing the Arriva Trains Wales franchise in future, it would be for the Assembly to decide how it wished such assets to be used by the new franchise operator. The Assembly will of course be involved in the re-letting process, and will be consulted by the Secretary of State about that franchise and all franchises that serve Wales. However the ultimate statutory responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. I am therefore convinced that amendment No. 36 is unnecessary.
	I understand the import of amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 48 to 51, which all seek to make the National Assembly for Wales the national authority in Wales for the purposes of clauses that deal with network modifications. At present, the Secretary of State has that role. The amendments, if accepted, would give the Assembly the same status in Wales as Scottish Ministers have in Scotland in this regard. Throughout clauses 22 to 31, the only national authorities are the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. Scottish Ministers have this duty for all services, stations and networks wholly within Scotland and for some cross-border services; it rests with the Secretary of State in all other circumstances. This reflects and is part of the much wider devolution of responsibility for railway policy and funding to Scottish Ministers. Apart from in a few important areas such as safety, Scottish Ministers now have policy responsibility for all aspects of Scotland's railway. That makes it appropriate for them to be the national authority in the circumstances that I have just described.
	As hon. Members have pointed out, that devolution settlement has not been extended to Wales. Under the Bill, devolution of railway policy and funding to the Assembly is much less extensive than to Scottish Ministers, and I fully accept that that is the cause of the complaint by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Assembly is taking on responsibility for franchising services in Wales, and those starting and finishing in Wales, through the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. However, the Secretary of State continues to have a major role relating to the railway in Wales—in specifying high-level outputs for the railway under schedule 4 to the Bill and funding the network, for example. Part of the reason for this is that the network in Wales is much less discrete an entity than the network in Scotland, which makes fuller devolution difficult at present.
	That being the case, it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to be the national authority for the purposes of this clause. Retaining this role for the Secretary of State fits better with the more general approach to devolving railway responsibilities to the Assembly, and is also simpler and more straightforward. Of course, in acting as the national authority for the purposes of the clause, the Secretary of State will need to consult and work closely with the National Assembly. There is already a requirement in schedule 7 for the Assembly to be a statutory consultee in relation to all closure proposals affecting Wales. Backing this up will be the extensive formal and informal discussions envisaged in the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly.

Hywel Williams: Does the Minister accept that some services, such as those operating on the Fishguard and Cardiff to Paddington line and those running along the north Wales coast, effectively serve local communities? They are mainline train services, but people use them in the same way as they would use a regional network such as Arriva, which operates within Wales. How would the Assembly discharge its responsibilities in regard to lines which the Minister would say start in Wales and end in England?

Tony McNulty: I accept that point, which alludes to the complexities of the issue. Equally, portions, and no more than portions, of many of our high-speed lines in an English context will be utilised as inter-communal lines as well in various parts of the country. In terms of the examples given, and specifically the Assembly, such matters will be worked out between the provisions in the Bill relating to Wales, which I have described thus far and will come on to describe, and the memorandum of understanding to which I have just alluded. In those or other circumstances in which an Assembly viewpoint should be given in discussions on any aspect of rail services in Wales, there should be no blockage on that view being reflected. We are not simply in the business of imposing from the centre what view should prevail in terms of the Welsh rail network. Equally, we are trying to work with the Assembly around the complexities to which the hon. Gentleman and others have alluded. I am trying to do so by taking the amendments as seriously as I can and in the spirit in which they were suggested. The memorandum will pick up many of those complexities, beyond what is not already reflected in the Bill.
	For those reasons, we do not think it appropriate for the Assembly to be a national authority for the purposes of this clause. As I have said, retaining the role for the Secretary of State fits better with the more general approach to devolving railway responsibilities to the Assembly and is simpler and more straightforward. As I have said, there will be a consultation and memorandum.
	Although the National Assembly is not a national authority, it has a significant role in closure procedures in Wales. In addition to being a statutory consultee, as I have said, it has a duty to provide closure guidance jointly with the Secretary of State for stations or networks in Wales and services in Wales, including cross-border services. I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will have seen—if not, they are in the Library—the headlines of the closure guidance, and I promised no more than that in Committee. Consultation will take place with the Assembly to come to some broad agreement on what specifically those should be in relation to Wales, as they need to be published jointly with the Secretary of State, as I suggested. The Assembly is also a designated railway funding authority under clause 44 of the Bill. The effect of that and the Assembly's funding of the Arriva Wales franchise will be that the Assembly will have the power to initiate closure proposals for the services that it funds through the Arriva Wales franchise. In that context, although I understand the import and thrust of that series of amendments, they are not absolutely necessary.
	Amendments Nos. 57 and 59, taken together, to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy alluded, seek to amend schedule 9 to replicate in Wales the arrangements for confirmation of railway byelaws, before they come into effect, that apply in Scotland. More specifically, the amendments would mean that where the byelaws affect only railway assets in Wales, they would need to be confirmed by the National Assembly. Where the byelaws affect railway assets including those in Wales, they would need to be confirmed by both the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State.
	As currently drafted, the Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for approving the byelaws of all railway operators wherever assets are located or used in England and Wales. This role is consistent with the Secretary of State's overall responsibility for the railway network in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Scottish Ministers have overall responsibility, hence their role in approving byelaws. I can understand the Assembly's desire to have a greater role in this regard. However, the arrangements set out in the Bill do not exclude it entirely. Byelaws will be made by the railway operator. The arrangements for approving the byelaws will not prevent the Assembly from working with Arriva Trains on the development of byelaws for the operator's stations and trains, which would then be approved by the Secretary of State.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will examine further the matter of byelaws and how they reflect dealings with Arriva Trains Wales, to see whether there is some way, perhaps outwith the Bill, that we can ensure that the Assembly plays a fuller role. I understand the importance of byelaws in many regards, although I am sure that he has read the Official Report of the assorted Committee proceedings, which reflect that there were those in Committee who would choose to push the byelaws a little too far in some regards. I will examine the byelaws point in more detail, to see whether through the memorandum, or some other way, there can be some accommodation.
	I have dealt with the new clause and amendments in as detailed and serious a fashion as I could, and have tried to explain—I did receive a letter from the Welsh Assembly—why they are not necessary for a number of reasons. I will, however, pursue the point about byelaws outside the confines of the Bill.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister went into great detail, and responded in a very fair way. I hope that this matter will be revisited in the other place, but that is by the by, and not for today.
	I hope to be able to move amendment No. 38 formally at the conclusion of proceedings, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Office of Rail Regulation Safety Report

'(1)   It shall be the duty of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) to publish, before the end of each calendar year, a report on safety.
	(2)   The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include information concerning—
	(a)   injuries and fatalities suffered by railway passengers, and the ORR's conclusions as to their causes;
	(b)   injuries and fatalities suffered by persons other than railway passengers resulting from incidents occurring on the railway system, and the ORR's conclusions as to their causes;
	(c)   any recommendations resulting from consideration by the ORR of the incidents referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b); and
	(d)   the findings and recommendations contained in the most recent review by the ORR of safety at level crossings.
	(3)   The review referred to in paragraph (2d) shall be conducted at least annually, before the publication of the report referred to in subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Llwyd]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause is very straightforward. It seeks to give the Office of Rail Regulation a duty to spotlight safety issues, which I think is important. I am not being alarmist, but in 2003–04 there was a pronounced increase in the number of incidents in which fewer than five fatalities occurred in the United Kingdom, as compared with the preceding two years. Although there were no major incidents in 2003–04, there were several minor incidents on the network. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and I know of one or two quite close to our constituencies, at Porthmadoc, and there have been some near misses elsewhere. There was a 6 per cent. reduction in the number of incidents of signals being passed at danger in 2003–04, but there were 378, which is quite a large number.
	Without being alarmist, we firmly believe that as there will no longer be a separate body to consider this issue—the Health and Safety Commission, whose responsibilities are to be absorbed into those of the Office of Rail Regulation—the public would be reassured if the Bill took account of that change by reorganising the railways to strengthen safety provision. We would also like the ORR, when it reports annually, to have criteria on which to judge relative safety in the relevant year, in the context of performance targets and the like.
	A later amendment, amendment No. 35, deals with safety, but we think that the extension of the ORR's responsibilities to rail safety should be in the Bill.
	The Minister is deep in conversation. I do not want to embarrass him, but I should like him to respond.

Greg Knight: I shall be brief, because I want us to cover as much ground as possible today.
	In the light of what we have just heard, I think it worth pointing out that rail travel in the UK is still one of the safest forms of travel. However, Conservative Members have some sympathy with new clause 12. Its aims are laudable. I have reservations about the potentially heavy-handed nature of these provisions, but if it is a question of balancing improved safety scrutiny against the imposition of a heavy-handed framework, we would all say that safety must come first. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the new clause is not needed.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, new clause 12 seeks to impose on the Office of Rail Regulation a statutory duty to publish an annual safety report. The ORR would be required to include in the report information on passenger and non-passenger injuries and fatalities, and conclusions as to their causes; recommendations resulting from consideration of these incidents; and findings and recommendations arising from reviews of safety at level crossings. The statutory duty would also require that reviews of safety at level crossings be conducted annually.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy seemed to make the same point—that accidents of one sort or another are always likely to occur on our rail system. Mercifully, grave incidents are few and far between, and rail remains overwhelmingly one of the safest forms of transport. We will all agree that when accidents do occur and difficulties arise, the actions of our emergency services and all subsequent inquiries and reports are expedited, in so far as they can be, in an extremely professional and committed fashion.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has anticipated me, in that I shall ask the House to resist the new clause, which is not necessary, as I hope to show. The Health and Safety Executive is currently responsible for publishing an annual report on the safety record of the railways—a function that is set out in the memorandum of understanding drawn up by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Health and Safety Commission. That MOU details the respective working arrangements and responsibilities in respect of railway safety, including the functions to be performed by the HSE. There is no statutory requirement in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 for the HSE to publish an annual report on railway safety. Such reports give details of incidents involving passengers and non-passengers, as well as those involving level crossings, and they are publicly available, free of charge, on the HSE's website. The HSE considers safety recommendations separately, in the context of inquiries and investigations commissioned for specific incidents.
	In transferring safety functions from the HSE to the ORR, we will seek to ensure that all such functions continue to be carried out in the same manner. Although there was no statutory requirement on the HSE to publish a safety report, the ORR should do so and we anticipate that it will. Indeed, we expect a similar reporting function to be set out in an MOU, to be drawn up by the Secretary of State and the ORR. The drawing up of an MOU with the ORR will form part of the transition arrangements.
	The Rail Safety and Standards Board is also required to publish an annual safety report. Furthermore, the rail accident investigation branch will have a duty to produce a report on all accidents and incidents that are the subject of an investigation. The intention is that the regulations providing for these duties will come into force later this year. We need to consider how best to fit these publications together, with a view to providing the public with information in the most effective way. Although I cannot say at this stage exactly how that will be done, I can assure the House that the information currently available to the public will continue to be available. In that context, I suggest that the new clause is unnecessary.
	The present health and safety regime on the railways will continue following the transfer to ORR, as will the publication requirements placed on the RSSB. In addition, when the RAIB comes fully into existence, information about its activities will remain in the public domain. Therefore, the proposals in the new clause are already covered by the Bill, and I ask the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to withdraw the new clause.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister of State for that detailed explanation. Although I continue to believe that these matters should be included in the Bill and that responsibility for safety should reside with the ORR, it is possible that this is a debate for another place.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Code of Practice for Disabled Rail Users in England and Wales

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice for protecting the interests of users of relevant English and Welsh services who are disabled.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall publish a code prepared under this section, and every revision of it, in such manner as he considers appropriate.
	(3)   Before preparing or revising a code under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985 (c. 67).'.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in clause 47, page 50, line 38, at end insert
	'and the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS)'.

Christopher Chope: Many disabled people still feel disenfranchised when they consider embarking on a rail journey, and the new clause would put that right. Rail journeys should be a pleasant experience for everyone, regardless of whether they are disabled, and I hope that the new clause will engender the Government's support.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman has been very brief in his presentation of the new clause, but I am sure that the House shares his concerns about disabled passengers. I disagree, however, that the new clause goes further than existing provision. When one considers the lot of disabled passengers under the previous Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the new clause is, frankly, a joke. However, this is an important matter for discussion.
	The new clause would require the Secretary of State to promulgate a code of practice for protecting disabled railway users in England and Wales. It would empower the Secretary of State to prepare and, from time to time, revise that code of practice. It would require him to publish it, and each revision of it. Finally, it would require him to consult the Department's disabled persons transport advisory committee before preparing or revising the code. It is designed to provide for a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a code in England and Wales that corresponds to the power in clause 47 allowing Scottish Ministers to prepare a similar code. I strongly believe that the new clause is unnecessary, and suggest that it be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I ask the House to resist it because a stronger provision is already included in the Bill.
	The existing requirement on the SRA to maintain a code of practice is contained in section 71B of the Railways Act 1993. Paragraph 29 of schedule 1 to the   Bill preserves that requirement, substituting the Secretary of State for the SRA. The Secretary of State's duty will extend to the whole of Great Britain, with the Scottish Executive's code applying only to services that they procure, including the ScotRail franchise. The schedule 1 provision is stronger than the terms of the new clause in that it additionally requires the Secretary of State to promote the adoption and implementation of the code, but the new clause would require him only to revise and publish the code from time to time. The requirements in the new clause would not achieve anything for disabled passengers. Schedule 1 also makes transitional provision to continue in force any existing SRA code and to enable the Secretary of State to draw on any consultation already undertaken by the SRA. That will provide continuity between the position as it stands under section 71B of the Railways Act 1993 and the position in the post-SRA period. That is important, but the new clause would mean the loss of that continuity.
	Amendment No. 60 seeks to add an additional requirement on the Scottish Ministers as to which bodies they must consult before publishing a code of practice for disabled rail users in Scotland under clause 47. The clause currently requires consultation with the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which is the body that SRA must currently consult when preparing a code of practice under the Transport Act 2000, and the body that the Secretary of State will be required to consult when he acquires the SRA's duty. Therefore the third element of the new clause is redundant, because it provides for something that already happens and will continue to happen under the new system.

John Thurso: I am following the Minister's argument with some interest. He makes a powerful argument that the measures in the Bill are stronger than the new clause. On the question of consultation, can he say whether the SRA is—or the Secretary of State will be—under any obligation to consult the Disability Rights Commission, which has been established since the 1993 legislation?

Tony McNulty: That is a fair point, but I will have to get back to the House on it. I am not completely au fait with the legislation that established the DRC, so I do not know whether it drew in all consultation requirements in extant legislation. I half think that the DRC automatically has a general role in any aspect of disability provision, including transport and the railways. I will certainly get back to the hon. Gentleman and the House on that point.
	The amendment would add the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland as a second consultee, after the disabled persons transport advisory committee, for Scottish matters. I freely concede that the amendment raises a very good point. MACS has been established by the Scottish Parliament to fulfil a similar role in Scotland to that of DPTAC in Great Britain and the Scottish Executive have advised that MACS is very important, but we need to take a step back. I have some sympathy with the principle behind the amendment, but we still think that it is unnecessary. As the matter is convoluted, let me go through it briefly.
	The Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland was established by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, and fulfils a similar role to DPTAC. DPTAC was established under legislation that pre-dated devolution, but equal opportunities law, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is reserved to Westminster. So, on the face of current legislation, DPTAC continues to have a role in Scotland.
	However, DPTAC and MACS work closely together. They have a concordat between them that will ensure that their work is complementary and that while DPTAC will deal with all issues that are reserved to Westminster, MACS will deal with issues that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I can imagine a much greater role for MACS in future with the additional devolution proposed by the Bill, but believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have looked into how one might unpick the pre-devolution legislation that established DPTAC—pre-devolution legislation that established much of the framework of our equal opportunities legislative framework—and I have discovered that a great many amendments would be needed to get it all in order to such an extent that we could simply say that in Scotland, given where we have got to with greater devolution on rail, MACS should be consulted, and in the rest of the country DPTAC should be. Although it is convoluted, I think that that explanation renders the amendment unnecessary.
	So, there would be a much greater role for MACS in future, given the additional devolution proposed by the Bill. However, a duty for Scottish Ministers to consult DPTAC but not MACS, however silly it sounds, should not adversely affect the existing role of MACS. Existing arrangements should ensure that DPTAC involves MACS or refers to it where an issue relates to devolved matters. I am also sure that when the Scottish Executive do consult on the code of practice, they will involve as wide an audience as necessary.
	Although I have, as I have tried to explain, enormous sympathy with amendment No. 60, I think that, for many of the reasons that I have suggested in terms of the legislative complexities, it is unnecessary; equally, given the increasingly strong relationship between DPTAC and MACS, if the import of the amendment is to ensure that the Scottish voice of disabled transport users is as fully involved and consulted as possible once these rail matters have been devolved to the Scottish Executive, the House can have, I think, my assurance that we will work together with the Scottish Executive to ensure that what the amendment seeks to do will prevail. But please do not ask me to take the matter back and come back with what will be, I would guess, anything from 30 to 50 amendments just to get all the legislative elements lined up so that what we all want can prevail strictly and purely in law. Rather, I ask hon. Members, please accept the assurance that it will prevail in reality. We do not want to go unpicking pre and post-devolution legislation and the statutory framework. In that context, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn and the amendment will not be pressed.

Christopher Chope: I note that the Minister has responded in great detail. We shall read what he has said and then consider whether we should come back with this amendment or something similar in the other place, but in the meantime, bearing in mind that there is only about 15 minutes left to discuss all the remaining amendments on the amendment paper, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Transfer Schemes at End of Franchising Agreements

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 11, line 6, at end insert—
	'(2A)   The appropriate national authority may make a scheme for the transfer, before the end of the franchise period, if the authority considers, after consultation with the Office of Rail Regulation, that the safety record of the franchisee is such as to warrant a transfer on the grounds of passenger safety.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 11, line 13, leave out
	'and
	(e)   a franchise company.'.
	No. 17, in page 11, line 14, at end insert—
	'(3A)   The appropriate national authority shall not make a scheme for the transfer of relevant franchise assets to a franchise company, at the end of the franchise period, if an independent assessment, which must be authorised by the national authority, demonstrates that the assets could be operated more economically and efficiently by a person identified in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d).'.
	No. 4, in page 11, line 43, at end insert—
	'(9)   The Secretary of State may not exercise his powers under subsections (2) and (3) to make a scheme to transfer the relevant franchise assets of any franchise currently operated by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to a franchise company. Those assets shall continue to be operated by a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers.'.

Elfyn Llwyd: The effect of amendment No. 35 is obvious. It would make safety a paramount consideration overriding other provisions in franchise agreements. It would open up the possibility of renationalising rail services on safety grounds, although the term "transfer" could include a transfer to a private company.

John McDonnell: There are only 15 minutes left in the debate, so I shall be as brief as possible. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 18, 17 and 4, which I have tabled. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to press amendment No. 17 to a Division at the appropriate time.
	The Bill is part of a sequence of events since 1997 during which we have been on a path of overcoming the problems faced by the railway industry as a result of privatisation under the previous Conservative Government. Although I do not think that the amendments go far enough, they offer a range of ways in which the Bill could be improved to bring back a degree of public ownership and public sector involvement.
	I argue the case for public sector ownership, control and accountability because the promises that we were given at the time of privatisation have demonstrably not been fulfilled. We were told that privatisation would bring about more investment in the railways and that the service would be improved. We were told that there would be a transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector and that we would have a more efficient railway system throughout the country. I congratulate the Government on the massive growth in investment, but that has come not from the private sector, but the Government, taxpayers and passengers.
	Last year's public subsidy to the private sector from the taxpayers of this country was £2 billion. Since privatisation, the Government have put £10 billion into the railway industry, but £1 billion of that—figures now suggest that it might be nearer £2 billion—has been creamed off for profit. Today's Evening Standard publishes the various companies' profits for last year. Their profits have risen by an average of 20 per cent., with FirstGroup making £60 million, National Express £54 million and Stagecoach £43 million. The private sector continues to exploit the railway industry for its own benefit.
	We were told on Second Reading that we required private sector involvement because it would bring £70 million a week of additional investment to the railway industry itself, but recent independent examination by independent experts has demonstrated that all that £70 million a week is public sector money that has been laundered back into the system. It is made up of subsidies provided to the private sector which it then disguises as its own investment.
	Profiteering has gone on apace, which is why we need a publicly accountable railway system. Profits have been achieved by what is called "sweating the assets", which means cutting services, exploiting the work force, and sometimes putting passengers at risk by undermining safety regulations and practices. We have heard of two further examples of that this week. On Monday, the Daily Mirror exposed yet again the fact that maintenance contracts on track renewal have led to the system being left unsafe overnight and over the weekend because of inadequate work done by inexperienced people. Only two days ago, 100,000 passengers were unable to travel on the London Underground because the private company managing the service could not complete its work overnight, as it did not bring the materials required for the job. Costs have escalated under the private sector, and costs for maintenance and renewal have almost doubled in the private sector compared with those under British Rail.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the company Tube Lines, which is owned by Jarvis, has got into enormous financial difficulty and, indeed, has sold its contracts with the public sector to refurbish parts of the London Underground? There is now trading in public contracts, but priority should be given to finishing those contracts for the public interest and the public good, rather than advancing share prices in the City.

John McDonnell: Companies trading in profits is understandable when one looks at examples such as National Express, which expects a 70 per cent. increase on last year's profits. How can that provide value for money for the public sector and for the travelling public?
	When the public sector demonstrates that it can run a service effectively and efficiently and give good value, as when Connex South Eastern went bust and South Eastern Trains took over the franchise, what happens? The Government force the operation back into the private sector. The private sector argues that its involvement enables transfer of risk, but we know that when that risk becomes too great, the public sector has to take it over again. That is what happened with the channel tunnel, Connex South Eastern and the maintenance contracts across the whole industry. Transfer of risk was a myth; it has been clearly demonstrated that it never worked from the start.
	I am unable to comprehend why the Government cannot now allow some form of public sector operational involvement in the railways industry. The general public are convinced: poll after poll shows that the public want the railways to be brought back into the public sector. As for the Labour party, I remind comrades and colleagues that at its last conference the party voted overwhelmingly for a policy to bring rail back into public ownership. When South Eastern Trains was discussed at the London Labour party conference, which took place only weeks ago, it was agreed unanimously that South Eastern Trains should remain in the public sector. It is absolutely bizarre that the Government will not even allow the public sector a level playing field with the private sector. That is what amendment No. 17 would achieve.
	Amendment No. 18 is straightforward: it invites the Secretary of State to bring the railway industry back into public ownership as franchises run out. Amendment No. 17 simply proposes that when a franchise comes up for renewal, there should be a public sector comparator to enable an independent assessment of whether the public or the private sector can run it best; then, the contract should be awarded according to the results of that assessment.
	Amendment No. 4 states simply, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If South Eastern Trains is running operations effectively in the public sector, why not leave it there? Ironically, it may well remain in the public sector—the Norwegian public sector, unfortunately, since Norway's state railway is bidding for the operation. The Government have a bizarre ideological commitment—a dogmatic commitment—to the private sector. It reminds us of the Victorian commitment to the hidden hand of the market, or, perhaps more appropriately, the American neo-conservatives' mantra for every occasion: "Private sector good, public sector bad." It appears that the only role that the Government envisage for the public sector is that of clearing up the mess made time and again by the private sector.
	On Second Reading and elsewhere, the Secretary of State argued that the railways cannot be brought back into the public sector because it would be too expensive. We were told at one point that it would cost £3 billion, yet within six months we were told that the cost would be £22 billion. My amendments would enable the railway industry to be brought back within the public sector without cost, as franchises run out. It is argued that amendment No. 18 inserts a public sector preference, but amendment No. 17 answers that by invoking an independent and objective assessment process. In fact, it is almost a modernising amendment—practically third way-ish.
	Amendment No. 4 is also straightforward. All the statistics for every quarter of last year show that South Eastern Trains in the public sector has outperformed all the private sector elements of the industry. They demonstrate how much more efficiently and effectively the operation has been run since it was taken over from Connex.

Robin Cook: I do not want my hon. Friend to understate his case. I am sure that he wants attention to be drawn to the fact that South Eastern Trains has not only improved the service to the public, but cut the subsidy needed by £1 million a month. The Government are therefore gaining every bit as much as the travelling public; surely they have an interest in ensuring that that continues.

John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point about benefits for the Government, but there are also benefits for South Eastern Trains from bringing maintenance contracts in-house. All that we are asking for is a rational process of decision making. We do not come with any ideological baggage from the past about the danger of relying on the hidden hand of the market or about the perfection of the public sector. We want a rational process of assessment.
	Time is short, so I shall conclude with an extract from a moving speech that was made at the Labour party conference. It is about Africa and the Government's role in the world, and the example that the Government can set, not just in Europe but globally:
	"But if we can show a publicly funded health service free at the point of need delivers to all the people, if we can show a modern state schooling free of charge is the best hope for all children, if we can show the ethic of public service is so strong that public services can provide efficiently for all people without having to privatise or charge . . . then what a difference our country can make to our world."
	I agree with that emotional and powerful speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It sums up the arguments of the amendments precisely and succinctly. All we want is a fair approach based on what works, what is in the best interests of our overall community, and what delivers services to passengers without exploiting the state for the profiteers in the private sector, as happens at present. On that basis, I should like to press the amendment to a vote.

Tony McNulty: Amendment no. 35, which was moved by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), aims to provide a discretionary power to transfer designated assets from a franchisee if that is warranted on passenger safety grounds. It would not achieve that as worded, and it is also unnecessary. I accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's point about the paramountcy of safety on the railways, which was a feature of the various contributions from colleagues.
	If a franchise operator operates in an unsafe manner, there are various means by which it can be held to account, including the terms of the franchise agreement, the terms of its operating licence and the enforcement of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000. The hon. Gentleman will know that those regulations require all railway operators to have a comprehensive safety case approved by the Health and Safety Executive before starting operations. A railway safety case ensures that a railway operation has effective arrangements in place to ensure the safety of workers, the travelling public and others who may be affected by the operation. If the operator acts in breach of its safety case, it may be prosecuted by the HSE.
	The Office of Rail Regulation will only grant a licence to operate if the train operator holds a valid safety case, unless the HSE has granted a safety case exemption for any reason. The regulator may revoke a licence if the licence holder commits a serious breach of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations. Unless exempt, it is unlawful for an operator to operate railway assets without a licence. It is an event of default under the franchise agreement if the operator's safety case is withdrawn or terminated, or if the operator is in material non-compliance with an HSE prohibition or enforcement order. All those powers are entirely adequate to protect passenger safety.
	It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which passenger safety might require the ownership of designated assets such as ticket barriers, information systems or contracts to be transferred to another body. If the assets themselves are a danger to the public, it will not remedy the situation to transfer the ownership of those assets to another person. For all those reasons, amendment No. 35 is not necessary.
	Amendments Nos. 4, 17 and 18, as my hon. Friend said, are intended to prevent private sector train companies operating franchises, but they would not work, nor would they outlaw franchises or transfer between operators. Taking back into the public sector each franchise as it ends costs nothing, for reasons that I shall amplify another time. It is also not the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) suggested, that the operating subsidy is far less—
	It being Five o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [6 December 2004].
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Transfer Schemes at End of Franchising Agreements

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 11, line 14 [Clause 12], at end insert—
	'(3A)   The appropriate national authority shall not make a scheme for the transfer of relevant franchise assets to a franchise company, at the end of the franchise period, if an independent assessment, which must be authorised by the national authority, demonstrates that the assets could be operated more economically and efficiently by a person identified in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d).'.—[John McDonnell.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 208.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Proposal by Service Operator to Discontinue Non-Franchised Services

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 21, line 2, at end insert—
	'(aa)   in relation to a proposal relating to services all of which are Wales-only services, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.—[Mr. Llwyd]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 215.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Membership of Transport for London

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—
	'(   )   In sub-paragraph (1) (which imposes a maximum of fifteen on the number of members appointed by the Mayor), for "fifteen" substitute "seventeen".
	(   )   In sub-paragraph (2) (which imposes a maximum of fourteen on the number so appointed where the Mayor is himself a member), for "fourteen" substitute "sixteen".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 44
	 — 
	      Interpretation of Part 4

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 48, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate authority'.
	No. 10, in page 48, line 42, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate authority'.
	No. 11, in page 48, line 44, at end insert—
	'(4A)   In subsection (4), "appropriate authority"—
	(a)   in relation to a person who provides no financial assistance for purposes mentioned in subsection (4)(b) other than—
	(i)   funding in relation to the provision of Scotland-only services,
	(ii)   Scottish majority funding in relation to cross-border services, or
	(iii)   funding in relation to the operation or use of a network or station, or part of a network or station, that is wholly in Scotland,
	means the Scottish Ministers;
	(b)   in any other case, means the Secretary of State.
	(4B)   For the purposes of subsection (4A)(a)(ii), a person provides Scottish majority funding in relation to particular services if—
	(a)   the person is—
	  (i)   a body established by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
	  (ii)   a body which has its principal office in Scotland, and
	(b)   in relation to those services, the person provides more funding than is provided in aggregate by railway funding authorities.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 46
	 — 
	Power of Scottish Ministers to make Penalty Fare Regulations

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 50, line 29, at end insert—
	'(   )   After subsection (11) insert—
	"(11A)   A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.".'. —[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 53
	 — 
	Further Amendments of the 1993 Act

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 56, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   After section 119(5) of that Act insert—
	"(5A)   The Secretary of State may give an instruction under this section for the protection of a relevant asset that is wholly in Scotland, or of persons or property on or in such an asset, only if—
	(a)   the asset would be a relevant asset even if railway did not have its wider meaning for the purposes of this section; or
	(b)   the instruction is given in the interests of national security.
	(5B)   In subsection (5A) the reference to an instruction given in the interests of national security includes a reference to any instruction given for the purpose of ensuring that protection against terrorism is provided to the asset, persons or property in question."
	(   )   In section 119(11) of that Act, after the definition of "specified" insert—
	"'terrorism' has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (see section 1 of that Act);".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Transfer Etc. of Functions of the Strategic Rail Authority

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 66, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Strategic Rail Authority'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Transfer of Safety Functions

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 87, line 44, at end insert—

'Regulatory Reform Act 2001

13A  The effect of the preceding provisions of this Schedule is to be disregarded in determining for the purposes of section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (power by order to make provision reforming law which imposes burdens) whether any provision of the 1974 Act falls within subsection (4)(a) of that section (provision amended by Act within previous two years).'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Miscellaneous Amendments of 1993 Act

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 128, line 27, after 'definition' insert
	'of "final order", after "provisional order" insert "or an order under subsection (7B)".
	(   )   In that subsection, in the definition'.
	No. 20, in page 129, line 29, at end insert—
	'7A  In section 57F(1) (validity and effect of penalties), for "penalty order" substitute "penalty notice".'.
	No. 21, in page 133, line 13, leave out from 'In' to end of line 15 and insert
	'section 143 (powers to make statutory instruments)—
	(a)   in subsection (1), for "under this Act to make orders" substitute "or the Scottish Ministers under this Act to make orders (except the power to make provisional or final orders under section 55)";
	(b)   in subsection (3), for "to make an order" substitute "or the Scottish Ministers to make an order (other than a provisional or final order under section 55)"; and
	(c)   in subsection (4), for "under this Act to make an order" substitute "or the Scottish Ministers under this Act to make an order (other than a provisional or final order under section 55)".'.
	Order for Third Reading read
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Tony McNulty: We had an interesting debate on Report and I thank everyone who was associated with the Committee stage, where the Bill received excellent scrutiny. It is nice for the most minor party to be able reflect on Report the views that prevailed in Committee after its representative did not bother to turn up to the Committee proceedings. I repeat that I am deeply sorry that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who represented Plaid Cymru on the Committee once in eight sittings, had a flood in his house on the day when his amendments were to be discussed and they were therefore not moved. Nevertheless, it is a shame that he managed to attend only one sitting.
	The Committee took the proceedings seriously and its members, from all parties, including Government Back Benchers, considered a range of issues in depth. That, together with the discussions on Second Reading and Report, means that the measure, as part of the overall implementation of the rail review, is all the better for our deliberations. I urge the usual channels—since I am no longer a member of that fraternity and sorority—to take lightly any urgent request from Plaid Cymru to serve on Committees because, in my experience, its members do not attend. None the less, Wales is important to the Bill, as are Scotland and the rest of the country, and the House lost the expertise that purportedly comes from Plaid Cymru.
	Throughout our proceedings, I said that the Bill needed to be viewed in the broader context of implementing the rail White Paper and the overall rail review. There is therefore a wider backdrop, which must be considered, to each clause. The Bill consists of 10 main elements, including the winding-up of the Strategic Rail Authority. As was said in Committee, that is not a reflection of how bad the SRA has been. To be fair, it has got us to a stage where we can move on and make further progress on the railways. It has done a splendid job and will continue to do so until its demise.
	However, we are now at the stage, given the assistance of the SRA, whereby we are marching from the complete bodge that was privatisation in 1994 towards something that has greater logic and integrity; something that no longer requires a body such as the SRA. Strategic elements of the Bill allow us to take it back into the Department for Transport. It is right and proper that the Government rather than the SRA make strategic decisions and determinations.
	The same is true of not only safety regulation but the relationship between safety, economic regulation, the Office for Rail Regulation and the Government. It is right and proper that the Government should set the broad strategic context for our railways and also the parameters for resources. The Bill makes concomitant changes to the relationship between the Government, ORR, Network Rail and the industry to reflect the new settlement.
	In shifting safety regulation from the Health and Safety Executive to ORR so that it is much more closely bedded into all the regulatory features of the railway industry, hon. Members should be assured that nothing will change the paramountcy that is afforded to safety throughout the industry. All the rail safety regulation functions that currently reside with HSE will move to ORR and will be locked far more firmly into the overall industry than has hitherto been the case. Because of that change in the nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the ORR, it has been important to make some changes in the Bill in relation to economic regulation.
	One of the underlying features of the Bill is the Government's real desire to devolve decisions and functions as close to the local and regional areas as possible. The Bill provides for the most significant transfer of functions to the Scottish Executive since the Scotland Act 1998. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) said earlier that that is, at least in part, the reason why the Sewel motion passed so swiftly through the Scottish Parliament yesterday, not only unanimously and to great acclaim, but to a roaring round of applause, which is probably unheard of there. In terms of the transfer of functions and resources to Scotland, the settlement makes sense and is also quite historic.
	We have explored many of the Welsh issues in the Bill. I do not want to dwell on the absence of Welsh Members when we met in Committee, but it is a shame that we had to have those discussions today rather than at that time. However, that is by the by. The Bill provides for a significant shift of functions, input and influence to colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, as and when that is proper in relation to services that are entirely within Wales. There will also be a proper level of consultation and influence relating to services that go to and from Wales.
	There has also been significant devolution in regard to the PTEs, and provision has been made for potential devolution in London, where appropriate. That is right and proper as well. Sadly, the geography of Wales, Scotland and London dictates that rail services are not contiguous with administrative or national borders. We have made no apology for saying that if the Mayor and Transport for London want to take a greater role in regard to heavy rail in the areas that surround London, that would be worth looking at. In the first instance, London's devolution settlement did not include any significant input in regard to heavy rail. TFL has been enormously successful. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) very fairly said, much of what it has done has been a real bonus for London. In the broadest sense, it is appropriate to consider how its influence can be extended to heavy rail, because there is a major lacuna in London's transport settlement in that regard.
	The Bill makes provision for that in the wider sense, and in the first instance, such devolution could involve the Silverlink franchises, which are more or less wholly in London, save for a little sojourn about three miles north of my constituency, where the Silverlink service finishes at Watford Junction. Given that Silverlink is almost wholly within London, however, it might provide a starting point for considering a new role for TFL. Any further role involving commuter services outside London would need to be considered only with the highest regard for the regional assemblies and areas into which such control might extend.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of his speech. On the transfer of facilities in London to TFL, is he prepared to consider the issue of the suburban interchange stations, which at the moment are run by Network Rail but which have a huge TFL input? Does he agree that it would make sense to reconsider the structure of the organisations, so that just one authority could run such stations? I am thinking particularly of Finsbury Park, but the same also applies to Clapham Junction and a number of other suburban junction stations.

Tony McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which was made on Report, and Finsbury Park was prayed in aid—I think that he was in the Chamber at that time. On where the ownership should remain, I made the point in Committee and on Report that the development of suburban, inter-urban regional stations should be duly considered, and that at the very least, protocols should be put in place so that TFL, Network Rail and others can work and operate them in the interest of their collective networks far more readily than they do now. A linked point is the potential of those network hubs for local communities, which has not been explored as readily by TFL or others thus far. My hon. Friend will know, however, that interlinking either between various tube lines or tube lines and heavy rail is complex, and the benefit of the interchange must prevail in the first instance.
	If the Bill is passed, the framework will be in place at least to examine how that sort of co-operation and advance can work in a London context and in the context of this Bill and other areas on which the transport White Paper elaborated last July. Our passenger transport executives, in some of the most significant cities in our country, will be able to take forward an integrated approach across all modes far more readily than they have done up to now. A good deal of devolution for Wales, Scotland, London and our major cities in terms of PTE areas would be introduced.
	If we do that, there are consequences for much of the railways legislation that is currently on the statute book. Much of the Bill, admittedly in a rather tedious way, has been about accepting that the Strategic Rail Authority is going, and that the regional network of passenger committees is going, to be replaced by a far stronger passenger voice. Those two elements, plus all the devolution provisions in the Bill, have meant in some cases a tortuous track back to correct previous legislation, hence the 19 clauses on network modification and the point that we discussed on Report about bus substitution, not, I hasten to add, "bustitution".
	While the Railways Bill should be considered as one element, which is hugely integrated, has a logic to it, and stands as one piece, it needs to be regarded in the wider context of all that we are doing in terms of transport generally, not just rail. It sets a framework, but as I have said on numerous occasions, the legislation only takes us so far. What really matters is what happens on the ground.
	As some of my hon. Friends have suggested during our deliberations, the Railways Bill needs to be seen firmly in the context of taking steps: to continue sustained investment in our railway network; to ensure that the management of the industry is as robust and efficient as possible; to make changes increasingly to franchising arrangements to introduce a degree of vertical integration; to introduce far greater co-operation between train operating companies and Network Rail through integrated control centres, and a good deal more co-operation at regional and franchise level; and to develop a far better rolling stock strategy than that which prevails at the moment to help the industry derive best value from future lease renegotiations. That is not part of the Bill but is central to our overall vision for the future of railways.
	To deliver a far better deal, it is not necessary for freight to be a substantive part of the Bill, but as we discussed a little on Report and in more detail in Committee, freight remains very important in terms of the delivery of this Government's vision for rail. It is also important to recognise all that we have done, in full-co-operation with the outgoing Rail Passengers Council, to develop a far stronger, far more focused voice for passengers and consumers.
	All that is possible because of the sustained investment being put in by the Government. We feel that we are now ready to move on to the next phase. The Bill will realise an exciting and improving vision for rail.
	When I was made rail Minister last September, I announced that I could say without fear of contradiction that I was very pleased to be rail Minister, and that it was a very exciting time at which to become rail Minister. Had I said that five or 10 years earlier, John Major's fabled white coats would have been flapping over the horizon; but, not least because of the sustained investment that has taken place since 1997, this is indeed a very exciting time for the railways. The number of rail passengers is back to pre-1960 levels—and we should bear in mind that about a third of rail capacity was denuded by Dr. Beeching some years after 1960.
	As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, despite my excitement at being rail Minister, I have no intention of going down in history as the next Dr. Beeching. That cannot prevail, given our vision for the railways and the framework outlined in the Bill. We are starting to put right decades of mismanagement and underinvestment in both the private and the public sectors. The Bill will enable us to build on that sustained investment and accelerate the improvement of our transport networks to the benefit of all—the rail industry, business, taxpayers and, most important, passengers.
	I thank everyone who has been involved in the Bill's passage, which has taken place in an engaging, informed and, dare I say, friendly fashion. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) accused me of, for most of the Committee stage, doing a passable impression of Leslie Phillips. I do not know quite what he meant, other than that I was being nice rather than nasty. My hon. Friends said that I was probably more like Sid James, but I will leave hon. Members to decide.
	I am very pleased to have been party to our dealings on the Bill. Once it has Royal Assent, given everything else that we are doing—which I have sought to outline, at least in passing—we will have a railway industry fit for the 21st century. Strategic control will be with the Government, where it belongs, and operational control will be with Network Rail and the operating companies, where it belongs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Christopher Chope: As on so many occasions in Committee, the Minister has demonstrated that he is not lost for words. We greatly appreciated much of the conduct in Committee, and we are grateful to the Minister for dealing with so many of our concerns.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) would have liked to be here this evening, but he is helping to raise money for charity. A large number of hon. Members will be at the Palace of Varieties raising money for Macmillan cancer care. I think they will raise £50,000 tonight, and my right hon. Friend is heavily involved.
	The Minister has been seeing the Bill through rose-tinted spectacles. He cannot disguise the fact that it is big on bureaucracy and centralisation, and very weak on how customers will actually benefit. I foresee that the passenger experience will involve more delay, increased overcrowding and rising fares during the years ahead. The only possibility of avoiding that would come from a change of Government, which we are working earnestly to bring about later this year.
	Various aspects of the Bill represent unfinished business. Let me remind the Government of a specific worry of ours, which has not been resolved. We pointed out in Committee that paragraph 1G of schedule 4 is objectionable because it undermines the jurisdiction of the Office of Rail Regulation in carrying out an access charges review. Currently, the ORR, not the Secretary of State, determines network capacity, what it can deliver, where it needs most maintenance and what its renewal pattern should be. This was made very clear in a letter from the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport to the ORR on 16 December 2003—the time of the most recent ORR access charges review—which is published on the ORR website. The permanent secretary said:
	"Under the Railways Act 1993, and the licences issued and contracts approved by virtue of that Act, it is the role of the Rail Regulator . . . alone to determine and establish the income requirement of Network Rail, and to set access charges accordingly."
	On 9 February 2004, the Secretary of State told the House that the rail review—the Bill is a significant part of the review's implementation—would definitely not do certain things. He expressly excluded from the review re-nationalisation, loss of independence of the ORR and
	"any change to the rights of third parties, which will be protected."
	He also excluded
	"weakening the effectiveness of economic regulation"
	and any
	"diminution in the regulatory protection of the private sector investors in the railway." [Official Report, 9 February 2004; vol. 417, c. 1237–38W.]
	In our view, it is impossible to reconcile paragraph 1G of schedule 4 to the Bill with the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 9 February 2004, because the schedule transfers from the ORR to the Secretary of State the role of determining the size and other features of the network. It diminishes the ORR's jurisdiction and thereby transfers a very important function from an independent regulator to the political Secretary of State.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has a problem with a network that is funded largely by the public being determined by an elected Secretary of State who is answerable to this House? Surely that is a more democratic and transparent process than the arcane bureaucracy that the Opposition seem to be promoting.

Christopher Chope: I know that the hon. Gentleman has different views from the Secretary of State, and certainly from me. He wants re-nationalisation.

Jeremy Corbyn: indicated assent.

Christopher Chope: At least that is a coherent policy. The Secretary of State said last February that re-nationalisation would not happen and he gave various guarantees. I am trying to point out that those guarantees are not reflected in the Bill.
	I hope that this and other issues will be taken up with vigour in the other place, and that the Lords will also be able to examine the memorandum of understanding between the Government and Transport for London concerning the definition of TFL's control of rail services in London. I understand that the MOU has been produced and is available, but that it was not made available to members of the Standing Committee. That is a matter of regret, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is publicly available, so that it can be discussed in the other place. That was a missed opportunity for Members of this House—even some Labour Back Benchers might have liked to scrutinise the MOU.
	We are extremely unhappy about the Bill in major respects, but it does of course abolish the Strategic Rail Authority. It is typical of the Minister's selective memory that he omitted to remind us that in 2001, Labour's election manifesto stated that the SRA would provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways, so that passenger expectations are met. Here we are in 2005, abolishing that self-same authority. What a mess the Government are in with their railway policy, and how passengers are suffering as a result!

John Thurso: It is true that our deliberations at all stages on this Bill have been good natured and largely constructive, and that the Bill is all the better for it. However, I retain reservations about a number of matters.
	I know that other hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall make only one or two brief points. First, my party continues to support he Bill's general principles. If the House divides on Third Reading, we shall support the Government.
	I expressed my concern about closures on Second Reading. I am grateful that the Minister of State made it clear throughout our deliberations—he has done so again this evening—that he did not intend to be the second Dr. Beeching. In Committee, he said:
	"This is not about a secret agenda. It is not about closures. It is not about me or any successor of mine being the new manifestation of the Conservative Dr. Beeching."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 2005; c. 204.]
	I am grateful that he put that on the record.
	However, I think that my noble Friends in the other place will want to look again at the strategy developed by the Secretary of State. I agree with the plan to get rid of the SRA. Given that the railways are largely, if not entirely, paid for from the public purse, and that the Treasury and the Secretary of State will make the decisions, it is correct that an elected Government—the representatives of the people—should have the duty to produce a strategy. I am completely at odds with those on the Conservative Front Bench on that matter. Even so, it is also right that the Bill should place a duty on the Secretary of State to develop that strategy, and to make an annual report on its progress. I know that that question will be revisited.
	The Minister indicated that the Government would support rail freight, and I am grateful for that. Various issues are not covered by the Bill and will be dealt with elsewhere, as was said on Second Reading. I hope that the Government will continue their commitment to rail freight, the development of rail freight interchanges and other measures. Britain needs a safe, reliable and affordable railway as a real alternative to the roads.
	We look forward to supporting the Government if the House divides on Third Reading.

John McDonnell: I welcome the Bill overall, as it is another stepping stone on the way to achieving a rational policy-making process in the industry. I have lost count of the number of rail and transport Bills that I have sat through, each of which has been said to establish a permanent structure for the long-term future of this country's rail industry and transport network.
	I believe that we shall return to this matter, and relatively soon. The travelling public have expressed a great many concerns about transport. For example, many people were trapped on the tube this week as a result of Metronet's mistakes, and the same thing has happened again this evening. I think that people will demand further change from the Government.
	I regret that we were unable to use the Bill to acknowledge the efforts of the rail work force. Our rail system depends on the hard work and commitment of dedicated professionals in the industry, some of whom have been treated unfairly since privatisation. An example of that is the two-tier system of travel concessions available to workers. I hope that that problem can be addressed in another place, or perhaps in subsequent legislation. Some rail staff working before privatisation gained full travel concessions, whereas others employed after privatisation received only a fraction of that, or none at all.
	Without the dedication, commitment and professionalism of staff we would not have the efficient service evident in many sectors of the industry. In addition, we should pay tribute to the commitment to safety that has persisted since the development of the regional rail network.
	I hope that we will be able to deal with some of those staffing issues at some time in the future, and that we can establish a structure based on public ownership and accountability.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I have listened with interest to much of the debate on this Bill. I wish that it went a lot further, and various opportunities have been missed, but I nevertheless support it.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) noted, today's Evening Standard carries screaming headlines about rail company profits. We should remember that we are voting to invest large sums of money in the rail network and infrastructure. That is correct, but we must be aware that much of that money is simply creamed off in profits by the train operating and rolling stock companies, and by many others. It is our public responsibility to think carefully about that.
	I hope that it is not too late for my hon. Friend the Minister to think again about the consequences of handing the South Eastern Trains franchise back to the private sector. The franchise has been run efficiently and effectively in the public sector, and Government money has been saved.
	The amount being invested in infrastructure is enormous. I welcome that and we now have a higher level of investment in railways than we have had for decades. Investment is now higher than in most other parts of western Europe, which is welcome. That investment recognises the role of railways in our society—their efficiency, safety and environmental sustainability.
	I welcome the increased investment, but I hope that Ministers will recognise the need to think seriously about the expansion of the network. We have seen the reopening of several lines, but many more could be reopened, such as the east-west freight route or the Waverley line in Scotland. It would be very welcome if such lines could be reopened and money put into them.
	We also need to consider the serious issues of rail congestion that affect all the main routes in this country, to some extent because of the success of the transfer of freight from road to rail, but also because of the increase in the number of passengers. We have huge opportunities to develop, expand and improve the network.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the opportunities I have mentioned should be taken up within the concept of public ownership, because that is the more responsible and efficient way. I am sure that we will come back to that subject.
	I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier in response to my intervention on the question of local stations in London. The city has a complex transport network, with an over-used London underground system, a rapidly and vastly improving bus network, but several under-used overground railway lines. They need to be fully integrated. London's transport planning has been bedevilled in the past by the separation between London Transport and the railway network. We have an opportunity with Transport for London and the concepts enshrined in this Bill to make TFL the body that can integrate the tube network with the overground network, the expanding tram network and the bus network. We need good local hubs and interchanges.
	I mentioned Finsbury Park station in my constituency. It is a parochial example, but I think that a lesson may be drawn from it. It is a local inter-transport hub. After much work between the bus companies, TFL's bus section and the local authorities, we have a wonderful refurbishment of all the external parts and the interchanges at the station. However, we do not have the necessary improvements to the station itself, where the underground and the overground meet, because the two organisations involved cannot agree on who will pay for it and what to do. If the station were run by one organisation, such as TFL, we could make some progress. I expect that exactly the same arguments apply to Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction and several other local suburban interchange stations. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on that point and I look forward to further discussions with him about it.
	These are exciting days for rail, which is expanding all around the world. I hope that we see more new lines in the future, but above all I hope that we see public ownership of our railway system.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Child Trust Funds

That the draft Child Trust Funds (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[James Purnell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Quiet Tarmac

Hugh Robertson: I wish to present the petition of residents of Doddington, Erriottwood, Kingsdown and Lynsted, which
	Declares appreciation for the current resurfacing work on the M2
	and asks that it
	should be extended as far as Faversham (junction 6), improving
	the
	quality of life and reducing noise pollution for householders in the surrounding rural areas.
	The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the Highways Agency to continue its resurfacing of the M2 with quiet tarmac as far as Faversham.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

CHILDHOOD ANAEMIA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [James Purnell.]

Bob Laxton: I am glad to be given the opportunity this evening to speak about the incidence and importance of detecting childhood anaemia. Anaemia is a condition where the level of haemoglobin in blood is lower than normal. Haemoglobin plays an essential role in the body, carrying oxygen to every living cell. Lowered levels can have a profound effect on health in both adults and children, producing a range of symptoms. In children, these symptoms can seriously impede mental and physical development. Anaemic children perform poorly in the classroom and are unable to participate in many physical activities. The problems become compounded as anaemic children develop into teenagers who fail to benefit from education.
	In 1988, one of the first studies looking into iron deficiency anaemia discovered the extent to which pre-school children had this condition. Over a 17-year period, study after study has also demonstrated the extent of iron deficiency anaemia in children. For instance, 52 per cent. of pre-school inner-city children are anaemic, as are 34 per cent. of female undergraduates. Anaemia does not differentiate between social classes either, with 9 per cent. of teenagers being diagnosed as anaemic, irrespective of which social class they come from. This level of anaemia in children is comparable to that of developing countries.
	In its last health survey for England in 1994, the Department of Health found that 4.1 per cent. of men and 10.8 per cent. of women were classified as anaemic, using the World Health Organisation's definition of anaemia. When the national diet and nutrition survey looked into iron deficiency anaemia in children, it found that 10 per cent. of children aged one and a half to two and a half years of age were anaemic. This fell to 6 per cent. for those aged two and a half to three and a half years. However, the percentage did not continue to fall into the rest of childhood. Instead, an absolutely staggering 50 per cent. of young women between 15 and 18-years-old were found with iron intakes well below the recommended amounts.
	In 1998, a separate study was carried out by HemoCue, a name that I am sure is familiar to both doctors and nurses. Its aim was to determine the prevalence of anaemia and to assess and improve the diets of children of pre-school age in the Pear Tree district of Derby. Pear Tree is an area just outside my constituency of Derby, North, falling in the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	Nevertheless, the results of the study demonstrate the terrifying level of anaemia in an area of economic deprivation, with a high number of Asian immigrants. For instance, 54 per cent. of Asian Muslim children referred to the study were anaemic. In Asian Sikh and caucasian children this figure was 32 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. A similar study that HemoCue carried out in north Birmingham, in south Birmingham and in Bradford yielded similar results. In north Birmingham, for instance, 45 per cent. of children aged 21 months old were anaemic.
	Until the issue of anaemia, and particularly childhood anaemia, was raised with me by John Clague, the director of HemoCue, I had, like many non-medical people, no idea of the incidence of anaemia in children, particularly in the UK's inner-city areas—in spite of the fact that many health professionals are aware of the existence and prevalence of iron deficiency anaemia. However, we have not seen a great deal of change in the last 15 years or so, except where specific programmes have been introduced by health care professionals with a particularly strong interest in the subject. The conventional attitude, in the meantime, is that childhood anaemia is self-correcting and does not have too serious longer-term consequences for a child. That is of course untrue. Persistent anaemia causes sores; spare hair; brittle, flattened nails; pallor and general debility. In other words, an anaemic child could well make for an unhealthy adult.
	I understand that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's working group on iron is expected to make its draft report available for comment in summer this year, with finalisation in spring 2006. I look forward to reading its findings and recommendations. However, childhood anaemia is not remotely high enough on the Government's health agenda. Indeed, due to the nature of the problem, childhood anaemia is the responsibility of both the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. I urge the Minister to use the planned publication as a more than timely opportunity to address childhood anaemia and perhaps approach the problem from a new angle and build the identification of childhood anaemia into primary care provision. I also hope to start to do something about it now.
	According to the World Health Organisation, anaemia is the most common evidence of nutritional deficiency in the world. As it happens, anaemia is not a specific disease, but a symptom of many conditions that result from a lack of haemoglobin in the blood. Several causes underpin anaemia. It could be due to the body's failure to produce red blood cells, which carry haemoglobin. It could be caused because red blood cells are being destroyed unusually quickly, or simply because someone is bleeding. Such bleeding is often brisk and obvious, but can be hidden in the case of a slow-bleeding gastrointestinal ulcer, or a tumour.
	The WHO study focused on anaemia due to nutritional deficiency. As one would expect, it was most common among children in the third world. However, even in the western world, nutritionally induced anaemia is not as rare as one might think. A survey showed that 10 to 15 per cent. of women of reproductive age were anaemic.
	There are several ways in which anaemia caused by nutritional deficiency can be treated. The obvious solution would be to ensure that children eat foods that contain the best sources of iron, namely red meat, offal, such as liver and kidneys, and eggs. From personal experience, an average child will probably eat red meat and eggs, perhaps in the form of a hearty steak and an omelette, but trying to get an eight-year-old to eat liver, kidneys or leafy green vegetables is a battle of parental wits over a child's intransigence. Of course, there is also iron in cereals, lentils, soya and beans. As some die-hard chocoholics will no doubt be pleased to hear, chocolate is also a source of iron, although I suspect that one would have to eat more than a box of Mars bars or KitKats a day to reach the optimum level of iron intake.
	If it is difficult to address the problem through the daily diet, the next best option is to treat it with iron supplements, but there are possible problems with that approach if a full analysis is not completed. For example, if there is no true iron deficiency, the excess iron supplements hinder the absorption of calcium and zinc.
	A lack of iron is not the only cause of anaemia. A shortage of vitamin B12 and folic acid can also slow down the production of red blood cells. Vitamin B12 is found in meat and dairy products, and if a person consumes sufficient quantities of it over time, it is stored in the liver for a good five years. Like iron, folic acid is obtained from green vegetables, cereals and liver, but it is not stored in the body for long.
	When it comes to babies, the biggest form of anaemia is encountered when breast milk is replaced by cow's or formula milk. Babies who are moved too quickly from breast milk to fruit juices or sugary concoctions miss out on the iron in milk. In a strange irony, one study found that middle-class babies from the so-called muesli eating classes, as well as those from immigrant homes, were most likely to have anaemia. Indeed, the Department of Health found similar results when it examined differences by household benefit status for men and women.
	What are the effects of anaemia? Even mild anaemia can lead to extreme fatigue and interfere with a child's ability to perform at school and participate in social activities. There are even more severe consequences in the long term, such as an irreversible delay in mental or psychomotor development. The Government are doing good work through Sure Start and children's centres to ensure that children growing up in deprived communities receive the additional support that they need. As recently as last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, who also happens to be the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, came to my constituency and we visited Sure Start programmes and a children and families centre there.
	We were both extremely impressed by the engagement of nurses and a range of professionals in dealing with children. Vulnerable children from families in receipt of the welfare food scheme are already provided with supplements, including vitamin C, which helps to aid absorption of iron from the diet. The publication of last year's White Paper "Choosing Health" reflects the Government's continued commitment to improving the diet and health of our children. However, the scattergun approach is not sufficient. The consequences of childhood anaemia are long lasting; more can and should be done to tackle it. If we succeed, we lay another solid brick for the future of each deprived inner-city child.
	If we set aside discussions of education in nutritional awareness, ethnic weaning practices and poverty, the basic conclusion is simple: to reduce the incidence of anaemia in children in UK inner cities, we must, first and foremost, ensure that we can identify the individual children at risk. The Government have, rightly, concentrated on childhood obesity, which has to be tackled, but it is not the only problem affecting the development of young children that needs our attention. It is equally important that anaemia is tackled.
	Companies such as HemoCue, which provides testing apparatus for anaemia, have to establish closer links with community health organisations and with Sure Start programmes. HemoCue is a Derbyshire-based firm and global leader, whose technology is used in many NHS hospitals throughout the UK. With just a single drop of blood and in less than a minute, HemoCue technology can give a precise haemoglobin analysis.
	If a positive identification of iron deficiency is found in a child, two immediate courses of action can be taken to remedy the situation. One is to inform the child's parents that dietary changes must be made. As I have said, that might mean the inclusion of more iron-rich food in the child's diet—for example, red meat, eggs, leafy vegetables and, dare I say, chocolate. The iron fortification of food such as bread, milk and cereals can also help to reduce iron deficiency. Several studies have shown that because the recommendation being made is based on a scientific test, parents accept more readily advice that might otherwise be dismissed as nannying or hectoring.
	In addition, it is important that regular screening is offered to all children as part of their routine development check. We must first harness the expertise of the health care professionals who know the extent of the problem and work at the sharp end in the community—midwives, nurses, community nurses and community-based paediatricians. In primary care trusts and the priorities determined within health action zones, there is a mechanism to empower those professionals to screen for anaemia in domiciliary visits. Bradford community health NHS trust has led the way in that respect. We must ensure that other NHS trusts seize the opportunity. Well woman clinics and well person clinics have become part of the health-speak vocabulary in recent years. It is not time that we extended the terminology across the board to include well woman and child clinics in inner-city areas, and systematically provided anaemia screening for both mother and child?
	The development of such links and services in primary care take us a long way toward our goal of reducing anaemia in children. At the same time, it will create the right framework that will move us closer to our longer-term goal of better health for future generations. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates the problem of childhood anaemia—I am sure that he does—but will he assure me that his Department will take the necessary steps toward tackling that serious health problem, and do so as soon as possible?

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on raising this important subject, in which he has taken a considerable interest for a long time. I hope to be able to reassure him that the Government take it as seriously as he does.
	Nutritional anaemia is the most common type of anaemia in children. As my hon. Friend said, it can be caused by deficiency of iron, vitamin B12 or folate, although iron deficiency appears to be the most important cause of the condition. Its effect is to limit a child's ability to be physically active. Prevention of iron deficiency is important, because the condition can affect intellectual development and behaviour in the longer term, and it is also associated with deficits in a variety of developmental and behavioural measures. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency undertake regular surveys to monitor the diet and health of children. My hon. Friend mentioned the national diet and nutrition survey, and the last survey in 2000 indicated that the reported prevalence of anaemia varies markedly in different age groups and that younger children and teenagers are both prone to iron deficiency. It showed that 3 per cent. of boys aged two to six years were anaemic, compared with 1 per cent. of boys aged seven to 18 years. Eight per cent. of girls aged four to six years, 4 per cent. of girls aged seven to 10 years, and 9 per cent. of 15 to 18-year-olds were anaemic. In addition, lower intakes of both iron and vitamin C, which helps in the absorption of iron, are more common among manual worker social classes.
	My hon. Friend rightly mentioned concerns that iron-deficiency anaemia is much more common among certain ethnic groups, including people from south Asian and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds. One survey, as he suggested, showed very high levels of deficiency. For example, 29 per cent. of Pakistani children, 25 per cent. of Bangladeshi children, and 20 per cent. of Indian children aged about two years were anaemic. Also of concern is the fact that iron intakes are considerably lower in young women, with 50 per cent. of 15 to 18-year-olds having intakes well below the recommended amounts, which can put them at risk of iron-deficiency anaemia. My hon. Friend raised the possibility of screening and early detection of anaemia. I can understand why he has come to that conclusion, but we must consider all the available evidence before deciding on such a course.
	The UK national screening committee—the NSC—advises the Government about all aspects of screening policy, drawing on the latest research evidence and the skills of a specially convened multidisciplinary expert group. While screening has the potential to save lives or improve the quality of life through early diagnosis of serious conditions, it can never be 100 per cent. accurate. The NSC is increasingly presenting screening in a risk reduction context to emphasise that point. Its child health sub-group has advised that there is currently insufficient evidence to introduce a national screening programme for iron deficiency anaemia, and that the emphasis should be on primary prevention through good nutritional advice until further evidence is available.
	The child health sub-group is a specialist sub-group of the NSC consisting of representatives of the royal colleges, paediatricians, researchers, health visitors and consumer interests. They weighed in the balance a number of arguments against screening when arriving at their recommendations. The test requires a blood sample, which some parents might regard as an unwelcome intrusion. Although haemoglobinometers are simple to use, a meticulous technique in collecting the sample and using the instrument is essential. The instruments available in community settings have a higher measurement error than those used in laboratories, and little is known about the accuracy of the measurements carried out in the primary care setting. Severe iron-deficiency anaemia would probably be identified without difficulty, but detection of the mild cases that would form the bulk of the screening could be less reliable.
	The timing of a screening test would present problems. Many children who would have the screening test at the age of 12 or 18 months would become iron- deficient in their third year. Conversely, some children who are iron-deficient in their second year recover as they eat a more varied diet in the third or fourth year of life. We do not think, therefore, that the evidence currently supports the extension of whole-population screening programmes. Iron deficiency is preventable, and resources need to be directed at primary prevention rather than screening. I realise that my hon. Friend may not agree with that recommendation, but if it is of any reassurance to him, the UK national screening committee always keeps its policies under close review, and I will draw its attention to the issues that he has raised today.
	What are we doing about childhood anaemia? I took part of my hon. Friend's speech as an indication that he does not believe that our emphasis should be on improved nutrition. However, I believe that is exactly where it should be. The Government are committed to improving the diet and nutrition of the nation, as set out in the recent Government White Paper, "Choosing Health".
	Specific actions to improve children's diet include introducing healthy start vouchers, providing training and support for head teachers, governors, caterers and health professionals, aiming for all schools to be healthy schools, adopting a whole-school approach to food through the food in schools programme, improving school meals and considering the introduction of nutrient-based standards, and introducing Ofsted inspections of healthy eating in schools.
	Current action on nutrition includes our investment in the five-a-day programme, the school fruit and vegetable scheme, promotion of breastfeeding and action to improve diet and nutrition across the whole school, as well as working with industry to reduce fat, sugar and salt. In addition to these specific actions, there is a considerable amount of local action including healthy living centres, Sure Start and action to deliver national service frameworks—all actions that my hon. Friend mentioned.
	The Government recognise the importance of primary prevention and have several actions under way. The importance of good nutrition prior to pregnancy and during pregnancy is well recognised. The welfare food scheme was established in 1940 to protect the health of women and young children at the time of rationing and price rises. The scheme was originally universal, but is now primarily targeted at low income families in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance or child tax credit under a certain level. The scheme currently provides tokens for free milk—both liquid milk and infant formula—and vitamins to around 800,000 pregnant women, mothers and young children under five in England, Scotland and Wales. A separate but parallel scheme operates in Northern Ireland.
	In line with the recommendations made by the committee on medical aspects of food and nutrition policy, the welfare food scheme is being revised to meet the present-day nutritional needs of mothers and children. Following the public health White Paper, from mid-2005 a reformed scheme, Healthy Start, will be introduced. The key features of the new scheme will be to provide access to a broader range of foods—for example, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables are being added to cow's milk and cow's milk-based infant formula at the outset—and this range will be kept under review. The scheme will use fixed-value vouchers, rather than volume-based tokens, which can be exchanged in the widest possible range of participating retail outlets, including food co-operatives and community shops as well as supermarkets, milk roundsmen, greengrocers, farmers markets and others. Closer links with the NHS will also enable the scheme to become the vehicle for delivering advice and information on diet, exercise, and other health issues to qualifying pregnant women and families. Finally, the new scheme will provide equal value benefits for breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding mothers.
	Vulnerable children in qualifying families are also provided with supplements, including vitamins A, C and D. Vitamin C in particular aids the absorption of iron from the diet. Iron supplements may also be prescribed to children with iron deficiency anaemia that does not improve with appropriate dietary advice. The provision of iron supplements for premature and low birth-weight infants is now standard practice, as they are at risk of iron deficiency.
	Breast milk provides the best form of nutrition for an infant. Following World Health Organisation revised guidance, the Department of Health recommended in May 2003 exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant's life. The early introduction of cow's milk, as my hon. Friend said, is associated with an increased risk of anaemia in children. The Department recommends that unmodified cow's milk be given as a main drink only after the age of one year. Appropriate weaning is important. After one year, the child's diet should include a variety of foods to ensure that it is adequate in iron and vitamin C.
	My hon. Friend pointed out that this is an agenda spread across two Departments, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. I believe that is right, as schools are pivotal to achieving our goals. Schools are a key setting through which we can improve children's health. Our vision is that all schools will be healthy schools that provide supportive environments, including policies on healthy and nutritious food, with the time and facilities for physical activity and sport, both within and beyond the curriculum. That needs the support of colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills.
	We are committed to improving school food and drink, not just at lunch time but across the school day, and we are revising and extending school meal standards, including food sold through vending machines and tuck shops. School meals should be nutritionally balanced and should cater for children's dietary requirements and specific religious or philosophical requirements and medical needs. The Department for Education and Skills is also ensuring that there are special diets for customers from religious and ethnic groups. These include halal meat and a variety of vegetarian options.
	We will be supporting school heads, governors and caterers to provide the best meal service possible, for example through training for caterers and guidance on food procurement. We will soon be launching a food in schools toolkit that will guide, inspire and help schools take the whole-school approach to healthy eating. I am delighted to say that, today, almost 2 million four to six-year-old children are now receiving free fruit and vegetables every school day in more than 15,600 schools in England.
	Recognising the vulnerability of teenage girls, the Government have also developed targeted healthy eating advice aimed particularly at young women. Following research that it conducted in 2004, the Food Standards Agency has issued special advice to teenage girls and young women. That includes practical tips on how to increase iron intakes and information on iron-rich foods. For example, a glass of orange or grapefruit juice with meals rather than the often consumed cup of tea can increase iron absorption.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, and we have indeed asked it to look at issues around dietary iron for us. As too much iron can be harmful, both beneficial and adverse effects are being considered, including the effect of dietary components on iron absorption and utilisation in the body; the interaction of infections and inflammation with iron metabolism and the possibility that that may affect the apparent incidence of iron deficiency; the effect of iron deficiency on health and well-being, for example mental and physical development; and the potentially adverse effects of excess iron, including free radical damage and the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The team is now in the final stages of reviewing evidence for the iron report, which, as my hon. Friend said, is expected to be ready to be released for stakeholder comment in summer 2005.
	Finally, as well as the White Paper "Choosing Health", the national service framework for children and young people and maternity services, together with the chief nursing officer's review of school nursing, will also play important roles in our campaign. The NSF puts an emphasis on early identification and intervention in child and family-focused services. The first strand is about promoting health and well-being, identifying needs and intervening early. I assure my hon. Friend that, although the framework began solely as a Department of Health document, with the appointment of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, it became a joint Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health document, and we are collaborating very closely on ensuring that it is implemented.
	One of the key themes of the chief nursing officer's review is the need to follow the child, providing services where vulnerable children and young people are, rather than services being dictated by professional roles and organisational boundaries. In order to fulfil the chief nursing officer's vision of having at least one full-time year-round qualified school nurse working in each cluster or group of primary schools, new funding will be provided to make that a reality by 2010. I think that those school nurses will be pivotal in spotting childhood anaemia at an early stage.
	Having set out the Government's position, I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some reassurance that the issue is very important to the Government and a high priority for us. Obviously, we will keep the situation and emerging evidence under review, and change the position as necessary. I congratulate him once again on raising this important issue, and I assure him that I personally take it very seriously, as do the whole Government.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.